Province of Alberta

The 30th Legislature Second Session Alberta Hansard

Monday evening, June 7, 2021

Day 110

The Honourable Nathan M. Cooper, Speaker

Legislative Assembly of Alberta The 30th Legislature Second Session Cooper, Hon. Nathan M., Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills (UC), Speaker Pitt, Angela D., Airdrie-East (UC), Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees Milliken, Nicholas, Calgary-Currie (UC), Deputy Chair of Committees

Aheer, Hon. Leela Sharon, Chestermere-Strathmore (UC) Nally, Hon. Dale, Morinville-St. Albert (UC), Allard, Tracy L., Grande Prairie (UC) Deputy Government Amery, Mickey K., Calgary-Cross (UC) Neudorf, Nathan T., Lethbridge-East (UC) Armstrong-Homeniuk, Jackie, Nicolaides, Hon. Demetrios, Calgary-Bow (UC) Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (UC) Nielsen, Christian E., Edmonton-Decore (NDP) Barnes, Drew, Cypress-Medicine Hat (Ind) Nixon, Hon. Jason, Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre (UC), Bilous, Deron, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (NDP) Government House Leader Carson, Jonathon, Edmonton-West Henday (NDP) Nixon, Jeremy P., Calgary-Klein (UC) Ceci, Joe, Calgary-Buffalo (NDP) Notley, Rachel, Edmonton-Strathcona (NDP), Copping, Hon. Jason C., Calgary-Varsity (UC) Leader of the Official Opposition Dach, Lorne, Edmonton-McClung (NDP), Orr, Ronald, Lacombe-Ponoka (UC) Official Opposition Deputy Whip Pancholi, Rakhi, Edmonton-Whitemud (NDP) Dang, Thomas, Edmonton-South (NDP), Official Opposition Deputy House Leader Panda, Hon. Prasad, Calgary-Edgemont (UC) Deol, Jasvir, Edmonton-Meadows (NDP) Phillips, Shannon, Lethbridge-West (NDP) Dreeshen, Hon. Devin, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake (UC) Pon, Hon. Josephine, Calgary-Beddington (UC) Eggen, David, Edmonton-North West (NDP), Rehn, Pat, Lesser Slave Lake (Ind) Official Opposition Whip Reid, Roger W., Livingstone-Macleod (UC) Ellis, Mike, Calgary-West (UC), Renaud, Marie F., St. Albert (NDP) Government Whip Rosin, Miranda D., Banff-Kananaskis (UC) Feehan, Richard, Edmonton-Rutherford (NDP) Rowswell, Garth, Vermilion-Lloydminster-Wainwright (UC) Fir, Tanya, Calgary-Peigan (UC) Rutherford, Brad, Leduc-Beaumont (UC) Ganley, Kathleen T., Calgary-Mountain View (NDP) Sabir, Irfan, Calgary-McCall (NDP), Getson, Shane C., Lac Ste. Anne-Parkland (UC) Official Opposition Deputy House Leader Glasgo, Michaela L., Brooks-Medicine Hat (UC) Savage, Hon. Sonya, Calgary-North West (UC), Glubish, Hon. Nate, Strathcona-Sherwood Park (UC) Deputy Government House Leader Goehring, Nicole, Edmonton-Castle Downs (NDP) Sawhney, Hon. Rajan, Calgary-North East (UC) Goodridge, Laila, Fort McMurray-Lac La Biche (UC) Schmidt, Marlin, Edmonton-Gold Bar (NDP) Gotfried, Richard, Calgary-Fish Creek (UC) Schow, Joseph R., Cardston-Siksika (UC), Gray, Christina, Edmonton-Mill Woods (NDP), Deputy Government Whip Official Opposition House Leader Schulz, Hon. Rebecca, Calgary-Shaw (UC) Guthrie, Peter F., Airdrie-Cochrane (UC) Schweitzer, Hon. Doug, QC, Calgary-Elbow (UC), Hanson, David B., Bonnyville-Cold Lake-St. Paul (UC) Deputy Government House Leader Hoffman, Sarah, Edmonton-Glenora (NDP) Shandro, Hon. Tyler, QC, Calgary-Acadia (UC) Horner, Nate S., Drumheller-Stettler (UC) Hunter, Hon. Grant R., Taber-Warner (UC) Shepherd, David, Edmonton-City Centre (NDP) Irwin, Janis, Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (NDP), Sigurdson, Lori, Edmonton-Riverview (NDP) Official Opposition Deputy Whip Sigurdson, R.J., Highwood (UC) Issik, Whitney, Calgary-Glenmore (UC) Singh, Peter, Calgary-East (UC) Jones, Matt, Calgary-South East (UC) Smith, Mark W., Drayton Valley-Devon (UC) Kenney, Hon. Jason, PC, Calgary-Lougheed (UC), Stephan, Jason, Red Deer-South (UC) Sweet, Heather, Edmonton-Manning (NDP) LaGrange, Hon. Adriana, Red Deer-North (UC) Toews, Hon. Travis, Grande Prairie-Wapiti (UC) Loewen, Todd, Central Peace-Notley (Ind) Toor, Devinder, Calgary-Falconridge (UC) Long, Martin M., West Yellowhead (UC) Turton, Searle, Spruce Grove-Stony Plain (UC) Lovely, Jacqueline, Camrose (UC) van Dijken, Glenn, Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock (UC) Loyola, Rod, Edmonton-Ellerslie (NDP) Walker, Jordan, Sherwood Park (UC) Luan, Hon. Jason, Calgary-Foothills (UC) Williams, Dan D.A., Peace River (UC) Madu, Hon. Kaycee, QC, Edmonton-South West (UC), Wilson, Hon. Rick D., Maskwacis-Wetaskiwin (UC) Deputy Government House Leader Yao, Tany, Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (UC) McIver, Hon. Ric, Calgary-Hays (UC), Deputy Government House Leader Yaseen, Muhammad, Calgary-North (UC) Party standings: United Conservative: 60 New Democrat: 24 Independent: 3 Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly Shannon Dean, QC, Clerk Michael Kulicki, Clerk of Committees and Amanda LeBlanc, Deputy Editor of Alberta Teri Cherkewich, Law Clerk Research Services Hansard Trafton Koenig, Senior Parliamentary Nancy Robert, Clerk of Journals and Chris Caughell, Sergeant-at-Arms Counsel Research Officer Tom Bell, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Philip Massolin, Clerk Assistant and Janet Schwegel, Director of Parliamentary Paul Link, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms Director of House Services Programs

Executive Council

Jason Kenney Premier, President of Executive Council, Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

Leela Aheer Minister of Culture, Multiculturalism and Status of Women Minister of Labour and Immigration Minister of Agriculture and Forestry Minister of Service Alberta Grant Hunter Associate Minister of Red Tape Reduction Adriana LaGrange Minister of Education Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Minister of Justice and Solicitor General Ric McIver Minister of Transportation, Minister of Municipal Affairs Associate Minister of Natural Gas and Electricity Minister of Advanced Education Minister of Environment and Parks Minister of Infrastructure and Housing Minister of Energy Minister of Community and Social Services Minister of Children’s Services Minister of Jobs, Economy and Innovation Minister of Health President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance Rick Wilson Minister of Indigenous Relations

Parliamentary Secretaries

Laila Goodridge Parliamentary Secretary Responsible for Alberta’s Francophonie Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism Parliamentary Secretary of Immigration

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA

Standing Committee on the Standing Committee on Standing Committee on Standing Committee on Alberta Heritage Savings Alberta’s Economic Future Families and Communities Legislative Offices Trust Fund Chair: Mr. Neudorf Chair: Ms Goodridge Chair: Mr. Schow Chair: Mr. Orr Deputy Chair: Ms Goehring Deputy Chair: Ms Sigurdson Deputy Chair: Mr. Sigurdson Deputy Chair: Mr. Rowswell Armstrong-Homeniuk Amery Ceci Eggen Barnes Carson Lovely Gray Bilous Glasgo Loyola Issik Irwin Gotfried Rosin Jones Reid Lovely Rutherford Phillips Rosin Neudorf Shepherd Singh Rowswell Pancholi Smith Yaseen Sweet Rutherford Sweet Sabir Yaseen van Dijken Smith Walker

Special Standing Committee Standing Committee on Standing Committee on Standing Committee on on Members’ Services Private Bills and Private Privileges and Elections, Public Accounts Chair: Mr. Cooper Members’ Public Bills Standing Orders and Chair: Ms Phillips Printing Deputy Chair: Mr. Ellis Chair: Mr. Ellis Deputy Chair: Mr. Guthrie Deputy Chair: Mr. Schow Chair: Mr. Smith Dang Armstrong-Homeniuk Deputy Chair: Mr. Reid Deol Amery Lovely Goehring Dang Armstrong-Homeniuk Neudorf Goodridge Getson Barnes Pancholi Long Glasgo Deol Renaud Neudorf Irwin Ganley Rowswell Sabir Nielsen Gotfried Schmidt Sigurdson, R.J. Rutherford Jones Singh Williams Sigurdson, L. Lovely Turton

Sigurdson, R.J. Loyola Walker

Rehn

Renaud

Select Special Committee on Standing Committee on Real Property Rights Resource Stewardship Chair: Mr. Sigurdson Chair: Mr. Hanson Deputy Chair: Mr. Rutherford Deputy Chair: Member Ceci Ganley Dach Glasgo Feehan Goodridge Ganley Hanson Getson Milliken Guthrie Nielsen Issik Orr Loewen Rowswell Singh Schmidt Turton Sweet Yaseen

June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5257

Legislative Assembly of Alberta adequate drug supplies for patient needs. We look forward to Title: Monday, June 7, 2021 7:30 p.m. working with the pharmacy college on these important standards. 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 7, 2021 Further amendments will boost collaboration between pharmacists or pharmacy technicians and veterinarians to enable [The Speaker in the chair] them to provide pharmacy services, medication, and drugs to all animals, including companion animals and cattle on farms and The Speaker: Hon. members, be seated. ranches. During debate I was pleased to hear agreement that these changes will allow pharmacists to work hand in hand with head: Government Bills and Orders veterinarians, who are often in short supply in rural areas. Our Third Reading legislative changes will increase access to animal health and Bill 65 provide support for cattle, dairy, and the agriculture industry that, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 in turn, supports the food chain. We are simply aligning provincial and federal legislation to make sure that the profession has the legal The Speaker: The hon. the Government House Leader. authority, Mr. Speaker, to provide these important pharmacy services to support animal health, as they have in the past. We look Mr. Jason Nixon: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased forward to ongoing work to the pharmacists and pharmacy today to rise on behalf of the hon. the Minister of Health to move technician regulation to identify the specific types of pharmacy third reading of Bill 65, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. services that could be provided to animals. Over the past weeks there has been extensive discussion about I also look forward to proposed amendments to the Alberta this bill in this Chamber, and I do believe that that debate has Evidence Act that will ensure judges of fatality inquiries have facts resulted in a clearer understanding of the bill’s intent. I am pleased and recommendations for quality assurance committees to help to have heard general agreement from across the aisle that these fatal inquiries hold more comprehensive reviews and make more changes are relatively straightforward and are common sense. They effective recommendations. fix, Mr. Speaker, some previous gaps in legislation and ultimately There are several other components of this important piece of benefit working health professionals to ensure Albertans are taken legislation that will make things better for Albertans, and I do hope, care of within the health system. Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with third reading inside this Chamber, Our priority remains protecting lives and livelihoods during the that this bill will continue to enjoy the support of all members of COVID-19 pandemic. We are doing everything we can to vaccinate the House and that we are ultimately able to pass it in due course. people as quickly as possible, to provide support to businesses, and With that, I will move to adjourn debate. to ensure that the health and well-being of our residents in continuing care are always protected, but this priority work to [Motion to adjourn debate carried] address the impacts of the pandemic does not mean that government shouldn’t also continue our work to strengthen, modernize, and head: Government Motions improve Alberta’s health legislation. The updates and the amendments to the six pieces of legislation The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. in Bill 65 are only part of the work being done to ensure Alberta’s health system better protects, serves, and meets the needs of Referendum on Equalization Payments Albertans. Changes to make the health system more transparent 83. Mr. Kenney moved: with increased system efficiency and protection of public dollars, Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly determine, all based on feedback from our valued stakeholders, is felt by all pursuant to section 3 of the Referendum Act, the following Albertans. as the question to be put to electors at a referendum and to The Alberta College of Pharmacy and the pharmacy profession which the response from an elector who votes in that asked specifically for changes to the Health Professions Act and the referendum must be either yes or no: should section 36(2) of Pharmacy and Drug Act. During debate of this bill I was pleased to the Constitution Act, 1982, Parliament and the government hear support for our proposed pharmacy-related amendments that will provide Albertans with an enhanced pharmacy system that is of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making more accountable, more modern, and continues to operate safely. equalization payments, be removed from the Constitution? Pharmacy technicians working in the pharmacy system would also Mr. Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move Government be added to this legislation to ensure their accountability to Motion 83. Albertans as well, Mr. Speaker. We are also deliberately moving certain operational requirements The Speaker: Please proceed, if the hon. the Premier would like to for pharmacies from regulations to standards of practice. This will do so. allow the pharmacy system to adjust itself to future changes and be more nimble for the needs of patients. No longer will the pharmacy Mr. Kenney: I would like to. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. college have to ask government for major legislative changes, but It’s an honour to rise to introduce this historic motion, which will it can make changes directly to their standards of practice that make give all Albertans a direct voice on a critical issue about this sense on the ground for pharmacists and for Albertans who seek province and its place in the Canadian federation. I often point out pharmacy services. After all, Mr. Speaker, the pharmacy system is that this Assembly is the only in Canada, including the House of in the best position to outline requirements for physical facilities, Commons and the Senate, which has every Canadian provincial dispensing areas, and private consultation rooms, for instance. flag and territorial flag on display. This provincial Assembly starts Amendments will also empower the Alberta College of Pharmacy our proceedings once a week singing the national anthem and, of to develop strong standards of practice, including those which course, as well, the royal anthem. This province is proud of the role protect pharmacy information systems, better safeguard patient it has played as a nation builder. Albertans have made an oversized records, and outline requirements to safely store drugs and have contribution to Canada from the very beginning of this province on 5258 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021

September 1, 1905, and prior to that as a part of the Northwest was a big part of it, but the biggest part of that dynamic growth, that Territories. This has been the greatest resource of natural resources great Canadian modern economic miracle that is Alberta, has been and wealth and, I would argue, human ingenuity of any part of the its people. It’s true. This province, whose population has doubled Canadian federation. in the past 40 years – it has doubled with the youngest population. That has become increasingly evident in recent decades, Mr. Yes, we’ve had a higher birth rate because of that young population, Speaker, as Alberta, whose economy has been driven in such a but the largest share of that doubling in population has been disproportionate part by our natural resources workers, has migration, migration from across Canada, and, yes, immigration contributed over $620 billion net to the rest of Canada since 1960. from around the world. That’s not an opinion; that is the result of 25 years of research by When I look around this House and see the spectacular Albertans University of Calgary professor of economics emeritus Robert who chose this place, who came from all across the world, the Mansell and his team, who were the first to develop a time- Member for Calgary-McCall and the Member for Edmonton-South consistent data set on fiscal transfers within the federation. In the West being two of many examples – we thank them for having last decade alone Albertans, through their federal taxes, have chosen Alberta to help to build this province. But I also look around contributed a net of approximately $21 billion to the rest of the and I see the Minister of Children’s Services, who chose to come federation. It’s true; an important caveat is that last year, in the here from Saskatchewan, the Member for Lethbridge-East, who midst of a twin public health and economic crisis of a once-in-a- was born and raised in British Columbia, and, well, the hon. century scale, we saw our net contribution come down significantly Minister of Finance, whose dad left as a hardscrabble farmer from as our revenues crashed and federal transfers were increased southern Manitoba and set out in a car 60 years ago to drive up to massively across the country. But last year was an aberrant year. the new frontier west of Grande Prairie and, with his brother, start This year – I’m sure the Finance minister can confirm – we will be a small cattle operation that’s become one of the largest ranches in back to making a net fiscal contribution in the scale of $20 billion Alberta. That’s the Alberta story, Mr. Speaker. We don’t build a year. walls around this province. We don’t build barriers. We don’t resent Mr. Speaker, I hasten to add that this does not mean that the hon. our fellow Canadians. We welcome them, and they are the people Minister of Finance signs a cheque to his federal counterpart for who have helped us to build this prosperous province. $20 billion. That is not a transfer from the government of Alberta So we offer this motion in a spirit of patriotism and of voted on by this Legislature to the federal government. Rather, that friendship. The message we send is the message I delivered to is an imputed transfer that comes from the federal taxes that we all fellow Canadians on the night that this government was elected in pay as Albertans. The way I explain it is that if you go to Tims and April 2019, with the largest ever democratic mandate in the buy a cup of coffee, 5 per cent of it is added on through GST. That history of the province, with over a million votes. I spoke as much goes down to the federal treasury, as does your personal income tax, to our fellow Canadians as to Albertans. I said that Alberta has as do your EI premiums, as do your CPP premiums, as do federal been there for the rest of Canada through thick and through thin corporate taxes. You take all of the federal taxes paid by all Alberta from year after year and decade after decade, not only through our individuals, families, and businesses and then you subtract from fiscal transfers but also by being that place of opportunity. We that all of the benefits and transfers to persons and the province that have been that engine of social mobility for people from across come back from Ottawa, and the net number, the net fiscal the country, for the unemployed Newfoundland fishermen, who contribution, is over $20 billion a year, year after year after year. lost their fishery, lost the cod fishery, which for four centuries had 7:40 been the mainstay of their economy. These are tough resource workers, small rural communities completely dependent on that Now, Mr. Speaker, sometimes in these debates we talk perhaps a responsible resource development. They lost their way of life, and little bit too much about equalization versus all the other transfers, where did so many of them go? To the land of hope and because out of the $21 billion that transferred, only about $3 billion opportunity, to Alberta. of that is attributable to our net contribution to the system of Mr. Speaker, think of the folks in Cape Breton: hard, tough equalization. What is equalization? Well, equalization is a system people, the descendants of the Highland clearance Scots and the that exists in most federations. It has existed in various forms in potato famine Irish. The losers of history their ancestors were in Canada since the late 1950s. It was formalized as a principle in the many ways, and they were struggling to make a life. When the coal , section 36(2), in 1982 with the patriation mines closed in Cape Breton, where did so many of them come? of the Constitution and the concurrent adoption of the Charter of Here to Alberta, yes, many of them, to work in our oil and gas Rights. It is the principle that all provinces should maintain roughly sector. When many of the manufacturing plants started to close in comparable levels of public services at roughly comparable levels of taxation. Ontario and Quebec with globalization and automation, where was Mr. Speaker, that is a noble objective, I think, in any federation. the economic release valve? Well, I’ll tell you what happened in the It’s an understandable objective. I don’t think any of us would want U.S. with the hollowing out of the Rust Belt industrial core of the to see fellow Canadians in other parts of the country living in abject American Midwest. What happened? Those communities went into poverty while other parts of the country might be in periods of a tail dive, a sad story of social decline, of growing criminality, of spectacular prosperity. I’ve always said – I’ve always said – that I drug and opioid addiction, a sad story of social and economic believe Albertans are proud to have been able to contribute to their decline through much of the U.S. postindustrial Rust Belt. fellow Canadians when times have been good here but bad But, Mr. Speaker, in Canada workers from similar, small-sized elsewhere. factory towns in central Ontario: they had an option. That option That’s why I started my remarks by pointing to the patriotism of was called Alberta, and they came out here as well and helped us to Albertans reflected in the symbolism of this Assembly. We are not build the prosperity of this modern province. – we are not – small- minded parochial regionalists, Mr. Speaker. My point to our fellow Canadians is that our contribution isn’t We are big Canadians, we are generous Canadians, and we are just 20-plus billion dollars a year, $630 billion over six decades. made up of Canadians from coast to coast. As we’ve driven the Our biggest contribution has been that place of opportunity where prosperity of this province in the past four decades, yes, oil and gas people – and we don’t even account for that. Imagine the June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5259 incalculable wealth that those workers have sent back to their at the Davos summit, his favourite, you know, fancy relatives in the form of kind of domestic remittances, Mr. Speaker. international billionaire party, said, quote: “My predecessor,” So it is no exaggeration to say that we have been the engine of meaning , “wanted you to know Canada for its the modern Canadian economy, yet, Mr. Speaker, what brought so resources, but I want you to know Canada for its resourcefulness.” many – you know, when you hear folks on the left talk about the Unquote. need for diversification, often for them that’s code for turning our Mr. Speaker, for the record there is no industry in Canada more backs on and eventually shutting down the oil and gas industry. resourceful, with more intensive investments in hard science, in Here’s the point. Our economy is one-third less dependent on oil applied research, development, and technology than the Alberta oil and gas today than it was 40 years ago. Why is that? We have and gas sector, which turned a huge and dormant resource of the diversified. We’ve diversified, by which I mean oil and gas has Canadian oil sands into the third-largest energy source on Earth. shrunk as a relative share of our gross domestic product even while Now, Mr. Speaker, that resource developed, billions of dollars of oil and gas has expanded massively in absolute terms, to the point investments were made, and there was a time not that long ago where today we’re generating the largest quantity of crude oil in our when we had pretty broad crosspartisan consensus, we’ll at least history. Take that, Greenpeace. say bipartisan consensus. The NDP was never part of it. But there Mr. Speaker, here’s the point. Why did we diversify? Because of was a consensus where Liberal and Conservative governments and even faster growth in areas like services and construction and parties federally and provincially understood the importance of manufacturing. What drove those investments in those jobs? responsible resource development. Population growth did. What drove that population growth? High- I must salute former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, of whom I paying jobs, a red-hot labour market, the highest labour force was an adversary. I want to particularly salute his former Deputy participation rate in the country, the highest employment rates. Prime Minister, Anne McLellan, and many in their cabinet, my You know, when I hear the NDP’s general critique about modern friend the now high commissioner to London, , and Alberta politics and economics, it goes like this: that under 45 years others, because, Mr. Speaker, between 1993 and 2003, really in that of Conservative governments this province was mismanaged, we decade, they approved enormous new oil sands developments didn’t save our resources, and it’s all a terrible, dystopian because they saw that this was our calling as a country, to wasteland. Mr. Speaker, this province for the better part of those responsibly develop our resources, to pay for the kinds of social four decades: by far the highest overall family and individual programs the New Democrats talk about. incomes, by far the highest disposable after-tax incomes, by far the That realistic, balanced, mainstream Liberal government got it, highest levels of employment, the lowest levels of unemployment, Mr. Speaker. They were pro oil and gas, and they were pro energy the lowest levels of poverty, the lowest levels of homelessness, and infrastructure, not without limits. They wanted environmental with all of that wealth we were able to afford the most generous responsibility, and they articulated that policy balance, I think, in a government services in the land. very sound way. Here’s my point. It’s that the energy sector, through the miracle Then, Mr. Speaker, we got up to levels of production where it of its modern development and the wealth it created, the became increasingly evident that we needed energy infrastructure opportunity economy it created, all of the spinoff effects – I mean, to get our products to market so that we didn’t end up bottlenecking just think about this. Think about the decline of so many rural the oil sands. Where we’re at is that we’re now producing about 4 communities. I mentioned this in Newfoundland. I grew up in a million barrels a day of crude oil, and we are getting back up to little farm town in Saskatchewan that had a population of 800 maximum capacity to ship it out. We hope that later this year, the before the Depression, and it now has a population of maybe 230. fourth quarter, we will see the commission of the Enbridge line 3 There are basically no businesses left. That was the story of so many replacement project, that will add 380,000 barrels a day of egress. rural communities but not in Alberta, where oil and gas came in, We are pleased to see the Trans Mountain expansion apparently on hired people. Farmers could get a second income. Maybe they could schedule, which would be an additional half a million barrels a day get some leasehold revenue as well. The life of rural Alberta: far of egress. more vital than in most parts of rural Canada, again, because of that But, Mr. Speaker, we got to this key inflection point in our industry. That industry, that resource, has created so much wealth, modern economic history a few years ago where we needed to start opportunity, jobs, and, yes, transfers to the rest of the country. building pipelines. We needed that energy infrastructure. Then, 7:50 regrettably, we had two governments, one here in Edmonton and one in Ottawa, who suddenly took a radical change of course in the Mr. Speaker, let’s bring that story forward to circa 2015, about direction of Canadian resource and economic policy. They decided the time that the party opposite took office here in Alberta and Mr. that they were going to allow their left, green ideology to trump the Trudeau took office in Ottawa. We had gone through this huge economic interests of working women and men in this province. modern development of our resource sector initially, you know, in They decided that they were going to subordinate the ability of the ’60s and ’70s, conventional, and then it must be granted that as working women and men to put food on the table for their families a result partly of strategic investments made by the government of to their ideological, pie-in-the-sky dreams. That’s exactly what the late Peter Lougheed together with the incredible culture of happened. We had a Premier, the now Leader of the Opposition, innovation and enterprise of science, of research and development, who went down there to Ottawa and said to Prime Minister science and technology, we managed to take what was considered Trudeau: please kill the approved Northern Gateway pipeline. Mr. an unproductive resource of the Canadian oil sands and turn it into Speaker, I hope she never lives it down. She went down there. They the third-largest reserve of proven, probable, and accessible oil had New Democrats who went to Washington, DC, and said to reserves on the face of the planet. That didn’t happen by accident. Congress: please kill the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The first I was once in a debate on television with Elizabeth May, the instructions that then Alberta senior representative to the United former leader of the Green Party, and I was talking about the huge States Rob Merrifield received from the then Premier in 2015 were, contribution of the oil and gas sector to Canadian prosperity, and quote, down tools on promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. she said: well, all you people out there do is that you just stick a Then, of course, they brought in their carbon taxes here and in hole in the ground and suck out the oil. It reminded me of when Ottawa to punish normal people for living ordinary lives, for 5260 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 heating their homes and filling up their gas tanks, buying their Mr. Speaker, then the more outrageous thing, that the NDP groceries. Then they took that, after their punitive tax, in order to refused – refused – to stand up to, was the National Energy Board finance their ridiculous green schemes like low-flow shower heads test that killed Energy East on the assessment of emissions and, really, perhaps the most bizarre thing: they started handing out associated with the upstream production of the energy that would hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies to millionaire owners be shipped through the pipeline. Now, what the heck does that of renewable energy companies in wind and solar. We took away mean? I mean, where was the federal government regulating the every dime of those subsidies, Mr. Speaker, and guess what emissions associated with producing cars in southern Ontario or happened: a huge expansion of investment in renewable energy in airplanes in Montreal? Everything requires some energy Alberta based on the market principles, not on punitive taxes and production, including the production of energy. Why would only socialist central planning. one industry be regulated negatively on that basis? It made no sense. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines law, which is a But, as a result, TC Energy pulled out. They pulled the plug. They direct violation of our exclusive constitutional jurisdiction under said: we can’t possibly proceed and risk shareholders’ money with section 92A of the Constitution, that critical historic victory fought this ever-changing and bizarre, unmeasurable metric that has been for and won by Premier Lougheed, which declares that provincial applied to us. So we lost Northern Gateway, we lost Keystone XL Legislatures have exclusive authority over the production and round 1, and we lost Energy East. regulation of their natural resources, including oil and gas and Then, of course, we had at the time the New Democrats in B.C. forestry resources, quote, unquote. Bill C-69, the so-called federal using games of political obstruction on the Trans Mountain project, environmental assessment act – what I call the no-more-pipelines and I called on the federal government at the time: if you really law – is a direct, full-frontal violation of that principle, which is believe in the federation, then trigger the section of the Constitution why we are suing the federal government, as promised, through a that allows you and has since 1867 to declare certain projects as judicial reference to the Alberta appeal court. being in the national interest, and if a certain province violates that That legislation created even more uncertainty. Enbridge spends national interest clause, then impose sanctions. Make the federation $1.6 billion on Northern Gateway, gets National Energy Board mean something. This comes back to what I said earlier about approval, gets federal cabinet approval, lines up massive First Albertans being big Canadians. We never have and we never would Nations support, and then Justin Trudeau by political fiat, with the unilaterally violate free trade within the federation, Mr. Speaker, full, enthusiastic support of Alberta’s NDP, just shuts it down: force unless we’re backed into a corner to defend our interests. In this majeure, destruction of wealth, destabilization of investor instance, the federal government didn’t lift a finger, nor did the confidence that sent a shock wave. NDP government suggest that they do so to sanction B.C. for And then President Obama, at the behest of the NDP, shuts down threatening the interruption of interprovincial infrastructure, which the Keystone XL project for the first time – and that’s after TC is protected under the Constitution’s national interest clause. Energy had spent over a billion dollars on the project up to 2015 – What was the consequence of all that? Kinder Morgan, a global and not a peep from Prime Minister Trudeau. Of course, all that pipeline company, packs up and leaves Canada. They said: we’re decision got was applause from Alberta’s NDP government out of here. They said, basically: what a gong show when it comes because they’ve always been opposed to pipelines. to investor confidence and regulatory certainty; we are out of here. Then, Mr. Speaker, Energy East. TC Energy spent $800 million The federal government ultimately had to go in, at great risk to in several years. I remember. I was at one of the very first briefings taxpayers, and buy that project. about Energy East when I was a minister in Mr. Harper’s And then there was Bill C-48, the tanker ban, totally prejudicial. government, and I thought: what a great, bold idea; this is so For the first time in Canadian history only one product, bitumen, exciting. A nation-building idea to take our energy, first of all do produced in only one province, Alberta, was excluded for export, a the line 9 reversal, and then build additional infrastructure that’ll complete violation of the principles of free trade and coastal access take Alberta energy to the east coast, displace Saudi and Algerian off the northwest coast of British Columbia, another full-frontal, and even American oil imports. Wow. This is fantastic. This is great direct attack on this province’s largest industry. I could go on and economics. It’s great for jobs; it’s great for national unity. And, of on about policy after policy, and they continue to layer them on, course, Justin Trudeau killed it. Mr. Speaker. Half the time our cabinet meets, what are we talking Yeah. How did he do it, Mr. Speaker? He did a kind of – it was a about? It’s the latest federal threat to the resources of this province little bit clever and indirect, but his government instructed the and how we’re going to deal with it. National Energy Board to apply a completely bizarre, novel, That is why, in the lead-up to the 2019 provincial election, we unprecedented policy test, which was to assess that project, for the proposed a fight-back strategy for Alberta, one key element of first time of any pipeline, for the up- and downstream emissions which is the motion I tabled this evening. In that platform we notionally associated with the pipeline, which, as I’ve always said, committed to hold a referendum on the principle of equalization in makes no sense. A pipeline consumes barely any energy, produces the Canadian Constitution concurrent with the 2021 municipal barely any emissions. It’s an inert piece of pipe. It requires some election this upcoming October. Let me explain why, what the logic energy to drive the pumps, but it is not a major energy consumer. is here, because I always make this very clear: should this motion pass, Mr. Speaker, it will not result in a direct or immediate change 8:00 to section 36 of the Constitution nor to the equalization formula, Mr. Speaker, the consumption from the Energy East pipeline because no one province can change a multilateral aspect of the would have been largely drivers in New England and none of the Constitution unilaterally. business of the federal government to regulate. They don’t regulate Now, let me maybe make a bit of an aside here. Members will the downstream consumption of oil that is brought into the Irving note that Quebec has Bill 76 before l’Assemblée nationale right refinery on Pemex tankers carrying Saudi and Qatari oil. They don’t now, which does make some unilateral amendments to the measure that. They’re not discounted. There’s no carbon tax Constitution of Canada with respect to powers exercised assessed on them. They don’t need approval from the National exclusively by the Quebec National Assembly on language, et Energy Board, from the Trudeau government to bring in foreign oil. cetera. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish that – now, I have embraced that, Why would Canadian exports be punished? What’s this about? by the way. The government of Alberta has endorsed Quebec’s June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5261 approach, and we are looking at areas of the Constitution which we future. But let me just say that, well, based on some studies which could subject to unilateral amendment. Unfortunately, this is not I think actually understate the case, the net contribution of Alberta one of them. This is a principle that is of general application across taxpayers to the rest of the country through the CPP premiums is the federation – I see the Minister of Justice nodding – therefore not about $3 billion a year. There’s good reason to believe it might be subject to any unilateral amendment formula. substantially more than that. Stayed tuned. Why does that happen? Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, the logic here – credit where Because we have a younger population; we have a higher labour it’s due, it was University of Calgary political science professor force participation rate, so a larger share of our population has been emeritus and former Alberta Finance minister Ted Morton who first working, versus the rest of the country; more younger workers, and proposed this idea in a paper about four years ago. The concept is they’re making more money, so they’re paying more of the max simply this, that in 1998 the , in the CPP rate. You know, just add that up year after year after year for Quebec secession reference – that was a series of questions asked 40 and 50 years. That means that, basically, the actuarial health of of the Supreme Court by the Chrétien government to provide, the CPP has become massively dependent on the Alberta quote, clarity on the parameters for any future referendum on workforce. That is one. secession. The Supreme Court came back and – I’ll summarize this Well, Mr. Speaker, we can’t unilaterally get out of equalization, in plain English – they said that if a province holds a referendum on but Quebec has established a precedent for provinces operating a constitutional amendment with a clear question and a clear their own provincial pension plans. That is something that the Fair majority votes in favour, then the has a, Deal Panel recommended that we pursue, and I look forward to quote, binding obligation to negotiate that amendment in good faith speaking to that in the future. with that province. But, Mr. Speaker, there are so many other transfers. Look, I’ll Now, it’s true that that reference, that decision, was in the give you another example. Even though we have the largest private- particular context of prospective Quebec secession, but we maintain sector investment relatively in research and development, science, that it is of general application across the federation. There’d better and technology in Alberta, we get the lowest federal transfers for not be a two-tiered federation, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the research grants from the federal research granting agencies. I mean, right of citizens to initiate constitutional referenda. I could go on, but when you add it all up, it’s $21 billion a year. Here’s the theory, the strategy behind this motion: it is I wish there was some simple or easy way. There are people out recognizing that we can’t change equalization unilaterally, but it is there who like to wind up Albertans’ emotions by pretending an effort to elevate to the top of the national agenda our demand for there’s some simple or easy way of fixing this fundamental fairness. How does all this come together? Like I say, I don’t unfairness. There is no simple way. This is going to take strategic actually think Albertans object to the principle of equalization. smarts, dogged determination, and a lot of patience by Albertans to What they object to is being forced to contribute massively to the demand fairness. How do I define fairness? Well, again, I simply rest of Canada even during tough times here, even while other define fairness as having the ability to develop the wealth that we governments are doing virtually everything they can to impair our share with the rest of the country. To be clear, I do not oppose ability to develop the wealth that we share with the rest of the equalization. The vast majority of Albertans do not oppose sharing. country. The point of this referendum: this is an opportunity for What they oppose is being forced to share at unreasonably high Albertans to say in friendship to our fellow Canadians, “We want levels, even during tough times, when our economy is being to continue to share some of our prosperity with the rest of the strangled by bad policies from the same governments that benefit. country, but you have to allow us to be prosperous in order to do it; Mr. Speaker, I have a good working relationship with the Premier you have to unshackle us from these unreasonable attacks against of Quebec. He’s a pro-enterprise Premier. He is supporting our prosperity and our largest industry.” liquefied natural gas projects. He’s joined us in opposition to the It has to be a two-way street in the federation. We are not federal carbon tax, joined us in opposition to the Bill C-69 fiasco, subordinate; we are coequal powers with our own spheres of and on many other issues has lined up with this province. But he sovereignty under the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. That is how a expressed opposition to Energy East. When the Premier of New federation operates. That was very clear at the time of patriation. Brunswick said to Prime Minister Trudeau, “How can we get The adoption of this motion through a referendum would be a Energy East back or a project like it?” Prime Minister Trudeau said, historic assertion of that principle by millions of Alberta voters. It “Go get Quebec onside.” He handed a unilateral veto to one doesn’t mean that we change the Constitution unilaterally or province on a nation-building, interprovincial piece of equalization. What it means is that we say to Ottawa: you darn well infrastructure. That’s just not how the federation should work. A better take us seriously because the people of Alberta have initiated week after that veto card was played by Quebec, guess what the process for constitutional amendment. happened? Ottawa announced that Quebec was getting an Now, as I said, Mr. Speaker, equalization itself represents only – additional $1.3 billion in their transfers. I say “only” – about $3 billion out of the $21 billion in net transfers, Quebec now receives – and let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I so we’re talking only about 15 per cent of the overall net transfers. shouldn’t have to say this. Sometimes the media characterizes We have to address the other aspects of unfair transfers. You know, comments like this as Alberta Quebec-bashing. I stood up on the unemployment insurance has been a – I was the federal minister victory night of the last election and spoke for several minutes in responsible for that program for a couple of years. What a headache. French about how much Albertans respect Quebeckers and how we It has been designed, jerry-built over decades to massively favour want to be political allies with Quebec, as we have often through certain regions. This is no secret. Basically, Alberta taxpayers – the the history of the federation. I want that to be true again. But the last study I saw had the average Alberta worker putting a buck 80 truth is this, and we must speak the truth about these things: that into EI for every dollar that our workers get back out of it, so that Quebec has been receiving $13 billion a year in equalization represents a huge out-transfer. payments from Ottawa over recent years – it’s gone from $8 billion to $13 billion – while they have been, through much of that time, 8:10 leading Canada in economic growth and employment. Pre-COVID Canada pension plan premiums: well, Mr. Speaker, that is a very pandemic Quebec’s unemployment rate was, I think, 6.2 per cent, substantial net transfer, and we’ll have more to say about that in the and Alberta’s was north of 9 per cent and for a while north of 10 5262 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 per cent. So we had – how does this work, Mr. Speaker? – out where they stand on fluoride and where they stand on unemployed Albertans funding subsidized daycare in Quebec for equalization, right? I mean, come on. employed Quebecers. 8:20 Since the NDP came to office, we’ve been running large deficits, average deficits under the NDP of about $8 billion, $9 billion a year. In many American states they have ballots with two dozen, three Quebec, through all that period, has been running consistent fiscal dozen public officials and then, like, two dozen, three dozen surpluses. Why would an economy in a deep deficit be forced to citizens’ initiatives. Mr. Speaker, we’re not exactly overdosing on generously subsidize an economy and a government that is democracy up here, having one or two referendum questions experiencing serial surpluses, Mr. Speaker? Why would Quebec together with electing a couple of public officials. Give me a break. students be able to go to university at lower, substantially lower, You know what? I’ll just call it for what it is. I think the people that tuition rates? Think of Alberta students who have to go out there, are complaining about that – maybe they don’t want more people the ones who take a job to put their way through university: the turning out. I think more turnout is a good thing for democracy. We taxes they pay are subsidizing the postsecondary education of their have terribly low turnout in municipal elections. I think that Quebec counterparts while these students are having a hard time typically in school board, municipal elections it’s, like, 30, 35 per finding a job at 15 per cent youth unemployment, and Quebec had cent turnout. Is that about right? Mr. Speaker, I’m hoping very much lower unemployment. How is that fair to those young people? much that Albertans who don’t normally vote in municipal When that same province, which I truly do love – I love the elections will take this as an opportunity to show up and speak on people of Quebec, their language, their culture. I love the fact that this important referendum. I have every confidence that we can have a thoughtful, respectful, democratic debate about not just they fight for themselves. They stand up for themselves. They’re equalization itself but the broader system of fiscal federalism and proud of their history and their identity. I think those are all virtues, Alberta’s role in the federation. Mr. Speaker. Yet we have a disagreement on one very important Should this pass, I would then immediately table a motion in this issue, which is shipping oil safely. We don’t understand why the Assembly seeking concurrence to formalize Alberta’s first legal majority of Quebecers are – by the way, our quarrel is not with the step towards a constitutional amendment. Should that motion then people of Quebec. The polls consistently show that the majority of be passed by this House, ratifying the democratic choice of Quebecers would prefer more pipelines to be built to buy and Albertans, I would then immediately write to the Prime Minister, consume western Canadian energy rather than to be forced to whoever it might be at that time, indicating, I hope, that the vast depend on OPEC and American oil imports. Our quarrel is not with majority of Albertans have passed this proposed amendment on a the people of Quebec but with governments of Quebec. I say to all clear question. I will append to my letter the decision of the majority of our partners across the federation: if you want the benefit of of the court of the Supreme Court in the 1998 Quebec secession Alberta energy, you’ve got to let us develop the energy. You’ve got reference, and I will quote it chapter and verse and say: “The to ensure a future – yes, an environmentally responsible future but Supreme Court has been clear, Prime Minister. Your government a future – for this, the largest sector of the Canadian economy. That now has a binding obligation to negotiate this matter of equalization is the implicit message of Motion 83. with us in good faith.” Then – thank God we’ll be able to get on Now, Mr. Speaker, why is this motion here? Because in the late planes by then – I’ll go down to Ottawa with a long list of demands 1980s the government of then Premier Getty, during the time of about what this province requires to be able to ensure a prosperous Meech Lake and Charlottetown, brought forward the Constitutional future. Referendum Act to ensure that the people of Alberta would have Mr. Speaker, I commend this motion to this House. This motion the final say over any proposed constitutional amendments, and was a central part of the platform on which this government was rightfully so. It has not been triggered yet. There has not yet been a elected. I will share with the House – I don’t often dispense political referendum. Well, there was the Charlottetown accord referendum advice to the NDP, but I’ll do it now. I know they love equalization. in 1992, but that was a federally administered referendum. So we I know they love shipping $21 billion a year down to the rest of the have not had a provincial referendum on a constitutional country. I know they love Trudeau killing all those pipelines. I amendment. This would be the first under that law, that was know they never objected to the tanker ban or C-69. I know we adopted, I think, circa 1988. Basically, it says that the Legislature know all that, but I would just plead with them. itself cannot unilaterally propose a constitutional amendment. It has to go through the people of Alberta first, and the government must Mr. Sabir: Point of order. table and adopt a motion specifying what the question will be. This The Speaker: A point of order is called. The hon. Member for motion is in fulfillment of the statutory requirements of the Calgary-McCall. Constitutional Referendum Act, which I think, as a result of subsequent amendments recently proposed by the hon. Minister of Point of Order Justice, is now simply called the Referendum Act. Language Creating Disorder There will be parameters around the conduct of this referendum. No one campaign or advocate will be able to spend more than Mr. Sabir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I would let the $500,000, for example. It will be held concurrent, as we promised, Premier’s comments go, but I thought it was a bit too much. Under with the next municipal election. I know I’ve heard some mayors, 23(h), (i), and (j) the Premier said: I know we love Bill C-69, and municipal councillors complaining that they think it somehow they let it go. Prior to that, he also mentioned about the Premier, distracts from their municipal elections. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know now the Leader of the Official Opposition, asking PM Trudeau to about you, but I give Alberta voters a whole lot more credit than please cancel the Northern Gateway and those pipelines. I do not that. We ask them to go to the ballot at municipal election time to think that these things have anything that are factually relevant or choose their school board trustees, Catholic and public, their correct. On Bill C-69, our government was the only government councillors, their mayor, and often on municipal plebiscites as well. that made a submission. When the UCP came into power, they just I know in Calgary we’ll be voting on fluoride again. I don’t know approved and accepted those submissions. I would say that, sure, what my position on that is, but people are smart enough to figure the Premier is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts. The June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5263

Premier should not be making remarks that will create disorder in communities are so hurting, the Alberta action items that this this House. government could do instantly from our police force to our tax collection to our pension plans to more control over immigration. The Speaker: The Government House Leader. Those inequities I heard about many, many times: the lack of representation on the Supreme Court, how elections are decided Mr. Jason Nixon: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could quote before we’re even home from the polls, and how many of the many comments by the Leader of the Official Opposition and many provinces in eastern Canada have a lot more members in the House members of the NDP caucus, both in and out of government, when of Commons than their population would warrant in comparison to it comes to the issues that the hon. the Premier has spoken about Albertans and Albertan families. Equalization became the focus. tonight and their position when it comes to certain pipelines. For People look at the way this federal program is structured, and the purpose of this point of order I’ll keep it very simple. John they rightly recognize that the equalization formula is rigged, Horgan, the Premier of B.C., who the Leader of the Official rigged against us in many ways, just the way Confederation is Opposition used to be a staffer for – when she as Premier went to meet with John Horgan and they asked if she, the rigged against the west also in many different ways. When you look at that time, raised with the Premier of B.C. Keystone XL, Northern at the details of how the formula was designed, you have to wonder Gateway, and those pipelines . . . exactly what the people who structured it were thinking. Why wouldn’t they want fairness and equity for all Canadians? Why An Hon. Member: Trans Mountain. wouldn’t they want all Canadians to have the opportunity to grow and prosper and have hope? You have to wonder why the federal Mr. Jason Nixon: Trans Mountain. Sorry. Correction. I get so government would create such an uneven playing field. You again excited about this issue, but it’s Trans Mountain. have to wonder whose political interests this formula serves. I The Premier, an NDP Premier of the province to the west of us, would love to ask the people that wrote this formula these very who the then Premier used to work for before that, said, and I quote: questions and many, many more. But the bottom line is that through she never even raised it with me. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the equalization and a variety of other federal programs, our province record of the Official Opposition on pipelines, it’s dismal, but that’s is treated like a colony rather than a full, equal partner in irrelevant because this is a matter of debate before this Assembly. Confederation. The Speaker: Agreed. This is a matter of debate. It’s not a point of Mr. Speaker, this has to stop. Albertans deserve a fair deal. order. Alberta families deserve a fair deal, and they deserve a government The hon. the Premier. willing to get tough, take risks, and fight for our province and our people. That is why I fully support this equalization referendum. Mr. Kenney: On the point of order? Many of my friends and colleagues in the House: we were elected on a platform that included this referendum on equalization. As The Speaker: No. such, I will use every tool at my disposal to fight for a fair deal for Albertans, and I will offer my full-throated support during the Debate Continued upcoming referendum campaign. Mr. Kenney: Just to continue. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 8:30 I was actually concluding by saying – I was just advising the However, Mr. Speaker, as I told the Premier when the Fair Deal Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to listen to Albertans on this. Panel’s final report was issued, much, much more is needed. Much, Pretty consistently we’ve seen for years now massive super much more is expected. When we’re talking about equalization, majority support for the concept of this referendum. It’s not the be- we’re talking about a program that has failed our province not just all and the end-all. It’s not the end game of the strategy for a fair for the past decade but for generations. The last number I heard was deal, but it’s a very important tool in the tool box. It’s an total transfers of over $670 billion out of Alberta families and out opportunity for Albertans to assert themselves and to demand of Alberta communities since 1960. fairness, and I therefore commend this motion to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this isn’t a Conservative failure or even a Liberal [some applause] failure. It’s a complete failure of federalism. The equalization referendum will help to bring these issues to public attention, which The Speaker: Order. is a small step forward. As I said, however, this referendum alone Hon. members, Government Motion 83. Are there others? The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat has risen. does not go far enough to make the changes that Albertans need and expect to be treated fairly in Confederation. A successful outcome Mr. Barnes: Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you. It’s my privilege to rise on this referendum will not fix Bill C-69. It will not repeal Bill C- and speak to this motion as well. As a member of the government’s 48. It will not lift the cap on the fiscal stabilization program, as Fair Deal Panel equalization was one of the major issues we failed earlier. It will not repeal the federal carbon tax, that past discussed at length with hundreds of Albertans during our many Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan so clearly pointed out was so trips across Alberta about a year and a half ago. In many ways it is unfair to families in provinces with carbon-based industries. an issue that has come to represent the entire fair deal issue. It will not bring back EnCana from the United States. It will not Mr. Speaker, approximately 20 per cent of Albertans went to the bring back the Teck Resources Frontier mine project and the mic and said that our deal with Canada is so unfair, so broken that thousands of jobs for all Canadians and Albertans and tradespeople they wanted out. Up to 80 per cent said that or said that they wanted and hard workers. It will not bring back the Keystone XL pipeline to work within the Canadian Confederation to get a fairer deal for or the more than $1.5 billion that Alberta taxpayers lost investing their communities and their families. But let’s be clear. in this project. It will not bring back the Energy East pipeline “Equalization” became the word, the focus for the entire fair deal proposal. It will not institute free trade between provinces. It will issue. It encapsulated the lack of resource movement, the not change the fact that Quebec, the major, major recipient of differences in values in eastern Canada while our families in our equalization, now has a balanced budget and has a generational 5264 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 fund for the future generations of Quebec almost as big as our working hard to ask all Albertans to get out and make sure that their heritage fund. voices are heard, to make sure that they support a change in the Mr. Speaker, it also will not provide fairness in other federal Canadian Confederation, to make sure that Albertans finally start to transfers. It will not protect Alberta from further federal intrusions work towards getting a fair deal for Alberta in spite of the lack of into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and there are so many of those, effort in the last two years. from reaching into our land use and our carbon tax and our Mr. Speaker, this referendum offers Albertans a historic environmental. It will not change the imbalance in the Senate. It opportunity to stand up to Ottawa. To stand up to Ottawa: that’s will not make the Senate effective. It will not change the unfairness what at least 80 per cent of the Albertans that took the time, the in the House of Commons seats. It will not give us equitable trouble, and the effort to present to the Fair Deal Panel were asking representation on the Supreme Court. It will not prevent Ottawa for and demanding. We simply cannot afford to blow this from signing on to international treaties that surrender Canadian opportunity. This referendum has to be about demanding fairness jurisdiction over a variety of issues, especially when it pertains to for Albertans, all Albertans. That is a recipe for success. It cannot Alberta industries. It will not add property rights to the Canadian and must not be about the political rehabilitation or the political Constitution. popularity of the government or the Premier. In many ways, when it comes to the failures of federalism, I have often stated that Alberta can and should be the strongest, equalization is just the tip of the iceberg. This government, under freest, most prosperous jurisdiction in North America. Our hard Premier Kenney, has made very little progress in addressing . . . workers, our risk takers, our skilled men and women – and, Mr. Speaker, this will only happen if our province has the opportunity Mr. Schow: Point of order. to shrug off the shackles holding us back, and Albertans seize our The Speaker: A point of order has been called. The hon. Member destiny, insist on a better deal like Quebec and the eastern elites for Cardston-Siksika. have since the beginning of Confederation. The stakes are too high for Alberta families to accept anything less. Point of Order Thank you. Referring to a Member by Name The Speaker: Hon. members, are there others? The hon. Member Mr. Schow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a long-standing tradition for Calgary-North, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary- in this Chamber that we do not use members’ names. The Member Falconridge. for Cypress-Medicine Hat would know that, being a returning Mr. Yaseen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am so pleased to rise today member. I’d ask him to maybe just adhere to that decorum. and speak to Government Motion 83, moved by the hon. Premier. The Speaker: I have to admit that I did miss whether or not he used The purpose of this motion is to debate the question of whether the name, but if he did, of course, it would be unacceptable and section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, Parliament and the unparliamentary to do such a thing. government of Canada’s commitment in principle on equalization The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. payments, should be removed from the Constitution. This is a very important question and one that every Canadian has the right to Mr. Barnes: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks for know the answer to. If the Legislature approves the referendum pointing that out. I’ll change that and withdraw that. question, it will be held along with municipal and Senate elections in the fall of 2021. Debate Continued [Mr. van Dijken in the chair] Mr. Barnes: Under the Premier we’ve made very little progress in For those who may not know what we mean when we say addressing almost all of these issues, and – guess what? – Albertans “equalization,” please let me explain. Equalization payments are have noticed. The time for empty gestures is over. The time for financial transfers from Ottawa that address the fiscal differences vague letters to Ottawa is over. Albertans are demanding real action between the provinces. Albertans fund equalization through federal to protect our economy, to protect our communities, protect our tax contributions, which are then transferred by the federal jobs, and protect our families. Mr. Speaker, the anger is real, and government to other provinces for their programs and services. Mr. it’s boiling over. Speaker, Alberta sends about $20 billion in transfers to the other What concerns me the most about the equalization referendum is provinces through the federal government each year. For the record that not only have I lost faith in the Premier’s ability to fight and between 2014 and 2019 Albertans made a net contribution of more win this campaign; in fact, his personal popularity dropping than $100 billion to the federal government through transfers to the threatens the very outcome of this referendum. An example I have rest of Canada, and over the last 25 years Albertans contributed of that, Mr. Speaker: at today’s press conference announcing – more than $400 billion. announcing – the equalization referendum and how crucial this is to Cypress-Medicine Hat and all of Medicine Hat, one question on 8:40 the referendum; every single other question centred around This is a zero-sum game, a game where one side has the improprieties, the lack of direction, and Patiogate. This is a real advantage and the other side is left with the bare minimum. Alberta concern when Alberta families are depending on this. The Official is proud to help Canada flourish, but we must be treated fairly. A Opposition has been leading the government for six months, and referendum on equalization is an opportunity for Albertans to make during that time we have seen the government’s popularity a strong statement to Ottawa that equalization does not work for plummet. There is no hiding the facts: he is the least popular Alberta. Premier in Canada, and to the extent which he’s a drag on his own Our government was elected to represent the needs of Albertans party, will make it a drag on this referendum, and may hurt us all. to the best of our ability, and one way we can do this is by fighting It’s good, though, that this vote is not just party members; it’s all for a fair deal. Standing up for Alberta against the federal Albertans who vote in referendums. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be government and foreign-funded special interests that are trying to June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5265 land-lock our goods is vital to Alberta’s economic survival. have-not provinces, like some in Atlantic Canada, would act to Fighting for pipelines and a fair deal, including a referendum on provide sufficient funds so public services of a comparable standard equalization payments, are ways to achieve fairness in this nation. could be offered from province to province. Whether you were in Nova Scotia or the Atlantic, Canadians could rely on the same [The Speaker in the chair] standard and level of public services no matter where you live in Hard-working Albertans have contributed their wealth to the this country although, Mr. Speaker, as many scholars, pundits, and betterment of our Confederation for generations, and they deserve everyday Canadians have articulated, that original intent has been to be recognized for that. The adjustments made to the fiscal long forgotten. stabilization program last fall by the federal government are another It is a simple truth that today provinces that are currently failure to address the long-standing unfairness in our country. struggling economically continue to pay more in equalization than Albertans have done their part. They worked hard, sacrificed, and they receive in return. That, Mr. Speaker, is the very definition of persevered through the unprecedented challenges that came with unfairness. People often say that you can’t have your cake and eat COVID-19 and its associated economic effects. it, too, yet if you analyze section 36 of the Constitution, the Mr. Speaker, as Albertans we are fortunate to be a part of a equalization formula set up by central Canada is set up to do just thriving democratic nation. In a strong democracy each the opposite. I say that because in a recent study conducted by the representative from every part of the country has the privilege and Fraser Institute, the fiscal gap between have and have-not provinces right to have a say in the policies and programs that the federal has shrunk from 27 per cent in 2014-2015 to 6 per cent in 2018-19. government introduces. Equalization payments and federal fiscal Logically, you would think that as the gap between the have and transfers are a common-sense issue of fairness, which should be a have-not provinces decreases, so would the equalization payments, unifying concern for the . I would say that yet that’s not the case. In fact, payments continue to increase year it is well past the time to fight for fairness. To quote the hon. after year. Premier: “This is not Albertans getting out a begging bowl. We Even when Alberta, the province we call home – and we’re very don’t look for welfare as a province; we look for fairness.” proud of it – is experiencing historic levels of economic decline, That’s why I support Government Motion 83, which asks for the payments continue to go to the provinces other than Alberta. Which government of Canada’s commitment in principle to remove provinces are these payments going to? Well, if you have spent any equalization payments from the Constitution. I look forward to this time in this country, the answer is very obvious. Provinces like question finally being put to Albertans this fall. Quebec, that has experienced prolonged stretches of economic Thank you, Mr. Speaker. prosperity, continue to receive equalization payments. That’s why equalization is a system where provinces can have their cake and The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Falconridge has the eat it, too, because prosperous provinces can enjoy a booming call. economy while simultaneously enjoying a cherry on the top of federal top-ups. Mr. Toor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak to the Equalization is a rigged system that benefits the few while the Premier’s motion about an issue that is very important for all rest of Canada is left empty-handed. Section 36 has become a Albertans. Fairness within Confederation has been a question that political tool that governments like Trudeau’s Liberals use to has been on the national table since Alberta joined the federation. It pander to their central Canadian supporters. It would be far too is an ongoing problem that Albertans have felt more keenly has not damaging politically for the Liberals to reform equalization as been adequately addressed over the past 40 years. they could lose much of their key support in Quebec, which, as In response to Albertans and the number of unfair actions taken we know, is the key province to win in any party’s bid to form a by Ottawa, like Bill C-48, Bill C-69, the cancellation of Energy government. East, the debacle of Trans Mountain, and the many other Ottawa- However, this cannot be about politics; this must be what’s right. knows-best policies that have damaged Alberta, our government As a government we have listened, analyzed, and know that created the Fair Deal Panel. The Fair Deal Panel was a series of equalization is flawed, so flawed that it is destroying our consultations that included in-person meetings, online surveys, and relationship within Confederation. Do Albertans want to save that expert interviews that sought to understand the best way to secure relationship or let it fail? This fall the decision will be made by a fair deal for Alberta in Confederation. The panel included my Albertans. I trust that Alberta will take a strong stance as a leader colleagues from Banff-Kananaskis, Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, in Confederation with the belief that this 154-year Canadian dream and a number of different experts. Some of those experts included can continue in an environment of economic and social fairness. Professor Moin Yahya, a professor of law at the University of Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta and someone who has written extensively on constitutional matters as a faculty member of the Centre for Constitutional 8:50 Studies. He’s just one of the several accomplished panelists that sat The Speaker: Hon. members, under Standing Order 29(2)(a) if you on this important panel to help shape a vibrant and fair future for all would like. Albertans. On the motion? I feel like an auctioneer here for a second. On the While the recommendations were published some time ago, the motion, the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. efforts of this panel were intended to help formulate a clear question: should we abolish the equalization formula or not? Mr. Mr. Sabir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government is asking the Speaker, that is a direct question that challenges all Albertans to House to approve the language of a referendum question to be asked consider the issue that drives us to the heart of federation. For of Albertans this fall. That language is: “Should section 36(2) of the myself, I believe the choice is very clear. Constitution Act, 1982, Parliament and the government of Canada’s However, before Albertans decide, they are to be informed on the commitment to the principle of making equalization payments, be issue and how we got there. As my colleague mentioned in this removed from the Constitution?” This is not language to adjust or morning’s press conference, equalization was intended to fix something that isn’t working as it should but to remove it redistribute wealth to have-not provinces. That redistribution to altogether from the Constitution of Canada. 5266 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021

The principle of equalization, broadly speaking, is that all cases they have lost hopes. But let’s be very clear on another thing. Canadians should have access to a roughly equivalent level of This referendum does nothing to get Albertans back to work or back services for a roughly equivalent level of taxation and that in a in their homes or back on a path to prosperity. In fact, this country as vast and diverse as Canada we should all enjoy a high referendum does nothing. It doesn’t remove equalization or even standard of living. To make that principle work, there is a formula start a process that might lead there. It does nothing. Is this whole by which provinces pay into the program and by which provinces exercise really about solving a fiscal problem for Albertans or a receive from it. political problem for the least trusted Premier across this country? Let’s be absolutely clear on something. The formula we have today It is fundamentally dishonest for the provincial government to was written by the Stephen Harper government in 2009 – let me say ask Albertans if they want something that the provincial this again for the benefit of the government members: the equalization government cannot deliver, especially when this government is formula we have today was written by the Stephen Harper government failing at delivering Albertans the things it can. Let’s go through in 2009 – and the senior Alberta minister in that cabinet in 2009 was these. Only the UCP government could impose a program called the current Member for Calgary-Lougheed and the current Premier. Alberta jobs now and then be five months late to launch an In fact, the member of that cabinet and the government of Stephen inadequate program, a program that by the government’s best Harper are the ones to blame for the current formula. estimate will replace less than half of the jobs they lost before the And I’m not the first person to point that out. The current minister pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans are still looking for of jobs made this point when he was running for the PC leadership. work. Tens of thousands of Albertans have given up looking The current Premier didn’t have an answer then, and he doesn’t entirely. This referendum does nothing for these Albertans. have an answer today. This probably makes some members 9:00 opposite a bit uncomfortable, that when they asked to go out and campaign this summer against this injustice, the author of this The federal government has come up with billions of dollars to injustice is their leader, the least trusted Premier in Canada and provide affordable child care. This would support hundreds of probably the least trusted person in Alberta. thousands of Alberta parents in getting back to work, but the Let’s be clear. The formula written by the Member for Calgary- provincial government refuses to come to the table. Lougheed is not fair to Alberta in several ways. One of the most There was even money from Ottawa to pay out a wage top-up to obvious is the fiscal stabilization program. This is designed to critical workers, and this provincial government was months late in protect provinces from sudden and severe shocks to government actually getting that money into Alberta workers’ pockets. Of all revenues. Of course, Alberta has experienced several of these, but the injustices that are being experienced by Alberta families, many the formula written by the current Premier imposes a cap on the of them are due to the incompetence of this UCP government. amount of help a province can get. So when we experienced the oil They’re failing at the things that are within their control, that are crashes in 2014 and 2020, we did not get all of the help that we have within their jurisdiction, so now they want to talk about things that a right to. This issue is one of those rare moments of agreement are outside of their control. That is fundamentally dishonest. between our parties. But our leader and the current Official I hope that the members opposite are asking themselves: “Will Opposition leader have called for this program to be fixed and for this create jobs? Will it drive economic growth? Will it attract Alberta to be paid out the billions in support that would be investment to Alberta?” The answer to all of these questions is no. proportional to the revenue shocks we experienced. That needs So why is the government planning to spend so much time and fixing, but that’s not what this referendum question does. energy on it? Albertans would like to know that. Let me say this again, that on this side of the House our leader Thank you, Mr. Speaker. and the current Premier both have one thing in common, that the formula that exists now is not working. That needs to be fixed, but The Speaker: Standing Order 29(2)(a) is available if anyone has a this referendum does nothing to fix that. The way that our natural brief question or comment. Under Standing Order 29(2)(a), the hon. resource revenue is calculated is not fair to Alberta. For example, Member for Calgary-Falconridge. Quebec generates significant economic activity from its Mr. Toor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My only question is – we’re hydroelectricity, and its Crown corporation, Hydro-Québec, talking about a referendum on equalization. I heard the speech from generates billions for the Quebec government. But because it is a the member opposite talking about a lot of numbers. My question Crown corporation, those dollars that go to the government of is: do they believe that this formula is fair? Do they believe that Quebec aren’t considered tax. That, in the view of the Official Albertans are getting a fair share? Do they think that they should Opposition, is just one example of how the natural resources bring a change? I’ll be least interested in who wrote this formula or component of the formula is not fair. That needs fixing, but that’s not. Nobody talked about this. So my question, through you to the not what this referendum question does. member: does he believe in this formula? Does he want any We have seen the problem of the GDP growth rate rule, change? If there is a problem, what is the solution? I want to listen introduced by the now Premier when he was in the federal cabinet. to the solution. Numbers games won’t create jobs. Numbers: we’re This growth rate rule ensures that each and every year, no matter talking about $20 billion, $20,000 million per year. That’s a lot of what happens with the fiscal capacity of the provinces, the money. I can see the wishful list somebody introduced yesterday equalization pie continues to grow. So even in a theoretical situation that will bring $10 daycare to Alberta. We subsidized this to where the fiscal capacities of the provinces converge, the Quebec, but will this opposition ask for the same from Quebec, that equalization pie still increases. That makes no sense. This growth they can subsidize our $10 daycare, too? These are the questions. I rate rule was brought in by the Stephen Harper government, which hope that the member can answer these. the Member for Calgary-Lougheed was a part of when he was Alberta’s senior lieutenant in the previous federal government. It The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall should he was a bad decision for Alberta. choose to respond. Albertans have a right to be upset about the unfair system that the Member for Calgary-Lougheed has helped impose on Albertans. Mr. Sabir: I’m very happy to, Mr. Speaker. Let me say this in Alberta families have lost jobs, they have lost homes, and in some unequivocal terms. The formula that we have today is not working. June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5267

I said in my remarks that on this side of the House we agree with Certainly, I agree with the Member for Calgary-Falconridge that the Premier and with the government that this program needs to be this formula needs fixing. When we saw a drop in our resource fixed and Albertans should be getting a fair share, fair treatment. revenues, when we saw our economy get hit by the recession, we But since the member is asking about the formula, I can tell the didn’t get the support that we needed from Ottawa. When we were member that he can ask the Premier, the Member for Calgary- in government, we were asking for better support. We were Lougheed. He will be in the best position to tell the member what’s advocating on behalf of Albertans so they can get our fair share not working . . . from Ottawa and they can get the help that they need from Ottawa. With respect to the specific question, that it’s unfair how this Mr. Schow: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. formula was negotiated, the member said that he doesn’t want to talk about who negotiated it. No. Albertans want to talk about that, The Speaker: A point of order has been called. The hon. Member who negotiated it. Albertans have every right to know who for Cardston-Siksika. negotiated it. Albertans even have a right to know that when they were in Ottawa and they were negotiating this formula – what was Point of Order going through their mind? What were they thinking at that point? Referring to Proper Titles Will they never come back to Alberta again or what? Mr. Schow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suspect this member knew Those are very important questions. The Member for Calgary- that this point of order was coming. You did speak at great length Falconridge should talk to the Premier and ask about these recently in this Legislature about the use of members’ questions, should enlighten this House, should share with us in this constituencies in lieu of their title as Premier or, in the case prior, House why that formula was negotiated by our Premier back in the day that was so not fair for Albertans. the hon. Health minister. This is the second time the Member for Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Calgary-McCall has referred to the hon. Premier as the Member for Calgary-Lougheed. I don’t know if this is a standing precedent that The Speaker: Hon. members, are there others wishing to speak to they want to continue to set. You have spoken and asked that the the motion? The hon. Member for Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock. members opposite respect the titles and honour that comes with being a member of Executive Council, something that was given to Mr. van Dijken: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has them when they were in government in addition to referring to their introduced Motion 83, seeking approval to hold a referendum on leader as a member of the opposition and not just the Member for whether Albertans believe the principle of making equalization Edmonton-Strathcona. While I state no specific point of order, you payments should be removed from Canada’s Constitution, and I have ruled on this. There is precedent in this Chamber to make that support this motion. The governing Liberals in Ottawa took it upon ruling again. themselves to renew the equalization program in 2018 without any input from Albertans. I believe it is time Albertans have an The Speaker: The hon. Official Opposition House Leader if he opportunity to have their say. chooses to respond to the point of order. 9:10 Mr. Sabir: It’s not a point of order. Mr. Speaker, over the last 25 years Albertans have paid over $400 billion more into federal transfer programs than they have received. The Speaker: I appreciate the submissions. I must confess that In the last 10 years alone Alberta has contributed more than $200 while that sounds like something I may have said, I don’t recall a billion despite unprecedented economic challenges during the last specific ruling with respect to the titles inside the Chamber. Of five years. This degree of wealth redistribution goes well beyond course, members ought to refer to individuals by their titles. I anything envisioned in our federation’s establishment. Albertans encourage them to do so. The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall have paid more than their fair share despite our commodity-based ought to do that, but the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed is also economy leaving us more vulnerable to shifts in public services, the Member for Calgary-Lougheed. I’m not sure that there is a point and we continue to contribute. It is impossible to justify taking such of order to be heard here, but I think it’s reasonable to be respectful a large sum from taxpayers in one province and sending it to other of members of the Executive Council. provincial governments to meet their provincial responsibilities. The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Mr. Speaker, the equalization program is an indicator of a much larger wealth redistribution problem within our country. While this Debate Continued federal program is supposed to ensure that each province can provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at Mr. Sabir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I was trying to clarify reasonably comparable levels of taxation as per section 36(2) of the for the benefit of the Member for Calgary-Falconridge – should I Constitution, the equalization program has grown to be increasingly also be adding Calgary UCP caucus chair, in the new role after the controversial and inequitable, with indications of much larger previous caucus chair stepped aside? I was just trying to make sure problems. that I’m referring to the Member for Calgary-Lougheed and our Mr. Speaker, equalization emerged as a stand-alone program in current Premier, that he should be asking that question to our 1957 though its origins can be traced back to the Second World Premier and the Member for Calgary-Lougheed, who then was a War. In 1941 the provinces let go of their income tax and their state cabinet minister in Stephen Harper’s government, who was tax domains in return for cash transfers from the federal negotiating that formula. government. These tax rental arrangements were created to enable The then Prime Minister – I’m paraphrasing – when he was asked the federal government to finance the war effort. However, after by provinces about this equalization program, his comments were World War II ended, policy-makers in Ottawa were hesitant to to the effect: it’s a federal program; provinces don’t have a say in return these taxes to the provinces. Ironically, during these initial it. I’m paraphrasing it. That’s not the direct quote. That was the years both Quebec and later Ontario considered the continuation of attitude of our Premier when they were in government in Ottawa. these tax rental arrangements as a sign of fiscal centralism, a theme 5268 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 that has not changed to this day. Since 1957 the equalization assistance, and social services are all included in areas for program has evolved in terms of the number of tax revenue bases redistribution payments and are all exclusive areas of provincial for which provincial fiscal capacities are equalized and the standard jurisdiction. fiscal capacity against which shortfalls are to be measured. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, by continuing the current trajectory, we In 1962 a new revenue base was added to equalization; a would be allowing the federal government to retain control over province’s natural resource revenues were included as the fourth these provincial areas of responsibility. The rise of more and more revenue base to be equalized. The changes to add natural resource transfer payments coming from Ottawa, the argument for revenues to the equalization program were driven by the desire to continuing the equalization program, becomes null and void. exploit Alberta’s oil revenues. It is this treatment of natural resource Continuing the equalization program amongst the system of revenues that has now become the most troublesome issue. increasing federal transfer programs is akin to double-dipping by In the words of Thomas Courchene, receiving provinces. a leading expert on Canada’s equalization program, A referendum on equalization is an opportunity for Albertans to treatment of resource revenues is “a theoretical and empirical make a strong statement to Ottawa that equalization does not work minefield,” an issue that “one copes with rather than solves.” for Alberta, let alone for the long-term sustainability of this country. From 1982 to 2004, except for some technical adjustments, the It is no longer possible to justify this program without major program has remained generally the same in its basic approach. change. I hope everyone in this Chamber understands that Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the federal equalization Albertans should have an opportunity for input when it comes to program is inequitable, with the wealthy have provinces always equalization. I say: let’s give them one with a referendum on the paying for the program that lines the pockets of provinces that validity of the program. I support Motion 83 to give Albertans that continue to chastise the hand that feeds them. The core principle of opportunity to have their say. that equalization, raising the financial ability of provinces to a Thank you, Mr. Speaker. benchmark fiscal capacity through financial transfers, has created undesirable and infectious incentives for provinces. Recipient The Speaker: Standing Order 29(2)(a). provinces know that any expansion of a province’s own tax base Seeing none, are there others? The hon. Member for Drayton will raise its fiscal capacity, leading to a decrease in its equalization Valley-Devon. entitlement. Equalization discourages fiscal responsibility, which in the long run causes harm to recipient provinces by incentivizing Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of misguided policy choices and thus exerting downward pressure on pleasure to rise today to speak to Government Motion 83. economic growth. Government Motion 83 reads: The program creates strong disincentives for natural resource Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly determine, pursuant development in have-not provinces since a substantial share of any to section 3 of the Referendum Act, the following as the question additional revenue is clawed back through reduced equalization to be put to electors at a referendum and to which the response payments. from an elector who votes in that referendum must be either yes Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, increased cash grants from or no: should section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, Ottawa restrain provincial autonomy. Former Quebec Premier Parliament and the government of Canada’s commitment to the principle of making equalization payments, be removed from the Maurice Duplessis said it best: Constitution? A central government which would appropriate to itself the sources of taxation would, by this very fact, reduce the provinces Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this question fulfills another to legislative impotence. Effectively, a province with no other platform commitment that this government ran on in the last revenues than federal subsidies would become a kind of inferior election. organism, under control of the authority which could measure out For a long time Albertans have less formally spoken against and its means of subsistence . . . Such a situation would amount to spoken out against equalization. This, however, is a chance for a replacing the reins enabling one to drive with shackles that very formal stand to be taken on this issue of equalization. In true paralyze and enslave. democratic fashion the people of Alberta will have the chance to Those words were spoken in 1955, and they are just as true now as vote on this issue, with a clear question being posed to them. they were then. 9:20 The ever-growing directive of the federal equalization program has allowed Ottawa to control areas not mandated as part of their Now, let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is not about the jurisdiction under our federation. Burton Kellock and Sylvia LeRoy political stripe that you wear. Rather, it’s about how Albertans from pointed out in a 2006 Fraser Institute study that this “debate over all walks of life feel about their role as taxpayers within Canada. It the specific requirements of the Constitution’s commitment to is about the vast amount of money that we have sent to Ottawa that equalization ignores a more fundamental issue: equalization uses could have been used to improve the lives of Albertans. This must federal revenues to fund spending in areas of provincial not be about left versus right or orange versus blue. This is about jurisdiction.” Mr. Speaker, because equalization uses federal tax fairness in equalization. revenues to fund spending in areas of exclusive provincial Alberta has done well economically. We’ve chosen to be jurisdiction, the entire equalization program falls beyond the industrious. I don’t think you have to go much further than my powers of the federal government as defined by Canada’s founding constituency to be able to see that that’s true. We’ve developed our Constitution of 1867. resources. We’ve created good-paying jobs that have made this If one breach isn’t enough, there are now three types of transfers province the great place that it is to be able to work and live and to coming out of Ottawa: the Canadian social transfer, the Canadian raise our families. However, while Albertans may not mind helping health transfer, and equalization. With the presence of the first two other provinces in Canada through transfers, I think they do mind ensuring that both health and social standards are effectively helping provinces that have not bothered to create the conditions guaranteed and efficiently funded, what becomes the purpose of the possible for their own success. But if we are going to be part of a equalization program? Education, health, municipalities, social transfer system of wealth, if we are going to be part of an June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5269 equalization process, I think most Albertans would say that we must vote directing their provincial government to take a stand on be allowed to pursue prosperity. equalization. Putting this question forward is where we shall begin. You cannot lock down our resources and expect an equalization This is about fairness, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to this payment to continue. You cannot stifle our access to North America question finally being put to Albertans this fall. It is long overdue. and the rest of the world and keep our resources locked in our I encourage all Albertans to make their voices heard and to think province. You cannot tax us to help other provinces and then stand about this for what it is. It’s not a partisan issue; it’s about fairness in the way of our prosperity and expect us to continue to finance the for Albertans, the citizens of Canada. I look forward to Government rest of the country. Motion 83 being placed before the people of Alberta, and I would The obvious example here is Quebec. Quebec has chosen not to encourage them to give it great thought and cast their votes wisely. develop many of its natural resources, and even now their Thank you, Mr. Speaker. government is aware that if they see an increase in natural resource revenue, they will lose out on equalization transfers The Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(a) is available proportionately. This has become a conscious choice for Quebec. if anyone has a brief question or a comment. The fact is that Albertans have sent a net amount of about $240 Seeing none, Government Motion 83. The hon. the Minister of billion to Ottawa from about 2007 to 2018, an average of $21.8 Finance and President of the Treasury Board. billion per year. I’m sure we can all imagine the things that we could Mr. Toews: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favour have done with that money here in Alberta, with an extra $21.8 of Government Motion 83, a motion that would give Albertans the billion. Think of the reduction in our debt. During that same period, opportunity to have their say on equalization. I came into the Mr. Speaker, Quebec received about $170 billion in equalization. Chamber tonight not necessarily planning to speak to the motion, Now, some people would argue that this is to even out the income but listening to fellow members lay out the rationale for taking this levels, but we don’t see it that way. Alberta’s low tax rates have question to Albertans, listening to the Premier lay out the incredible made it the booming economic success that it has been historically. history of this federation, the challenges within this federation, and We’ve been able to achieve that through resource development. It’s the issue with equalization and, more broadly, our federal fiscal not been perfect, but it has led to Alberta contributing more money transfer programs has inspired me to get up and say a few words. from 2007 to 2018 than British Columbia and Ontario combined. Mr. Speaker, there’s been much said tonight already, so my Quebec opts for higher taxes and an economy that leaves much of comments will be brief as I’ll try not to duplicate too much of what its resources in the ground and promotes mostly lower income jobs. has been said. The general idea behind equalization is to make sure that provinces have the ability to spend equally on their citizens as the 9:30 other provinces within the federation. Let’s take a look at that. In Mr. Speaker, the principle of equalization is of course built on 2021 Quebec will have an income after equalization of about the principle of ensuring that all Canadians, regardless of where $118.2 billion. Now, with a population of around 8.485 million they live, have reasonable services regardless of the individual people this enables the government of Quebec to spend about prosperity of their communities. I support that principle in general. $13,930 per resident from their budget. Let’s compare this to As the Premier noted earlier, I would not want to see glaring Alberta. Alberta will have an income this year of about $43.7 poverty in one region of this nation while other regions enjoy great billion, and with a population of about 4.371 million people, that prosperity. allows us to spend $9,997 per resident. This, Mr. Speaker, is the Alberta, as many have stated tonight, has made an outsized problem. contribution to this federation. As many have stated already tonight, The outdated equalization concept is no longer about equalizing in the last five years Alberta’s net fiscal transfers – net fiscal a province’s ability to provide for its residents; it has become a transfers – to the federation have exceeded $100 billion. Since the mechanism for provinces to choose to say no to resource 1960s our net contribution has been over $650 billion. Mr. Speaker, development, yes to lower paying jobs, and a means by which people question the province of Alberta and say: why don’t you Ottawa can buy votes in Quebec. All of these are a slap in the face have a sovereign wealth fund like Norway? Our sovereign wealth to Albertans, who work hard to provide for themselves and to fund went to Ottawa and was disbursed across the nation. That’s subsidize the rest of the country. why taking this question to Albertans is absolutely essential. An example of something that Quebec can afford to do that The question we can ask is: how did Alberta come to be this great Alberta cannot do because of this equalization disaster is subsidize economic engine of growth and wealth creation? Let me start by child daycare. The Quebec cost for child care in qualifying spaces saying this. The principle, fundamental reason, I believe, that is about $8.50 per day. In 2015 they spent $2.6 billion on that Alberta has grown to be the wealth creation engine of the nation is program, and in Alberta we were having a debate about trying to the entrepreneurial, hard-working, innovative, risk-taking character get costs down to $25 per day. While the benefit of such a program of Albertans. Mr. Speaker, that is the bedrock, foundational reason remains debatable, it would be obvious now, through the previous for Alberta becoming the wealth creation engine of the nation. Then calculations, that it would be much more affordable to accomplish you couple that with the incredible natural resources that this subsidized child care in Alberta if we were not busy paying for province has been blessed with and you combine that with the Quebec’s subsidies. strong rule of law, particularly with respect to property rights and Opponents of this referendum have often said that it is pointless economic freedom, and you have the formula for great wealth because it’s not binding on Ottawa. While this is true, that should creation. That’s what’s happened in the last 60 to 70 years in the not mean that we do nothing. This is about starting, about starting province of Alberta. In fact, I would suggest that in many parts of somewhere. This is about starting with democracy and having the the nation there is not a road, a school, a hospital, or a bridge that people speak for what they want to see. That is the whole purpose cannot point to the wealth creation engine that is Alberta to fund of our system, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we are here today that infrastructure. speaking to Motion 83. We’ve talked about this for a long time in Mr. Speaker, there have been some comments made tonight Alberta, that Albertans have never had a chance to hold an official about the formula, the specifics of the formula, and I want to make 5270 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 a few comments about the formula because the formula is flawed. I could talk, Mr. Speaker, about the Northern Gateway pipeline Even if you believe in equalization – as I mentioned, I believe in that was cancelled, Energy East that was cancelled, Keystone XL. the principle – this formula is flawed. At this point in time After the President revoked the presidential permit, the Canadian nonrenewable resource revenues are included in the calculation. federal government was mute, was silent, unwilling to invest an They’re not included at a 100 per cent inclusion rate but at 50 per ounce of political capital on behalf of the largest wealth-creating cent. I would suggest that their inclusion at any level leaves the sector in the nation. I could talk about Bill C-69, the no-pipelines formula flawed. As has been noted by friends on both sides of the bill, or C-48, the legislation that prohibits tankers from taking heavy aisle, this feature of the formula provides great disincentive for Alberta oil to export markets while, at the same time, allowing U.S. every province to fully make decisions on whether they will tankers to go up and down the strait. It is absolutely nonsensical. develop their resources or not. Every province should have that Where’s the ban on the St. Lawrence Seaway? I don’t see it. I don’t sovereign decision-making ability, as outlined in the Constitution, want it, but remove it from the northwest coast. but I assert that every province should then live with the economic 9:40 consequences of that decision and not depend on other regions of the nation that step out, take risks, and create wealth. Mr. Speaker, I’ll conclude with this. For the sake of hard-working Mr. Speaker, there’s another issue with the equalization formula Albertans, for the sake of Alberta families, for the sake of all – and it has been mentioned tonight – and that is the floor Albertans, I support letting Albertans have their say on mechanism that prompts the program to continue to grow with equalization, and I support Government Motion 83. national GDP growth at a time when income disparity across the The Speaker: Standing Order 29(2)(a) is available if anyone has a nation is beginning to level. That is a problem with the equalization brief question or comment for the Minister of Finance. Under formula. In fact, in the last few years provinces in this nation have Standing Order 29(2)(a), the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. been overequalized to the tune of $2.8 billion. In fact, in ’21-22 provinces will be overequalized, because of this flaw in the formula, Ms Sweet: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the by over $500 million. That is a great flaw that must absolutely be minister for standing up and sharing some of his concerns that he fixed. has with the equalization program. I think we can all agree that the Mr. Speaker, we spoke of the great fiscal contribution by the program needs to change and that there are areas that need to be province of Alberta to the federation. It also includes the improved, and I don’t think that on either side of this House that’s employment insurance program and, as the Premier mentioned, the disputable. Canada pension program. We will have more to say on that in future What I do find very interesting, though, is the rewriting of history days as we consider the advice from the Fair Deal Panel, who that has been occurring for most of this evening when it comes to recommended that we pursue a deep and thorough investigation of how the equalization program came into place. I would like to the opportunities that could be held for the people of Alberta with remind all members of this Chamber that the hon. Premier was in an Alberta pension plan. cabinet under the hon. Prime Minister Harper when many of these Mr. Speaker, some have mentioned the fiscal stabilization issues that the actual minister just spoke about were written. program. This is a federal fiscal transfer program that is designed Let’s talk about what happened under the formula that the hon. to provide provinces some fiscal relief when they experience great Premier wrote; that is, one of the first things that was written in was and drastic and severe drops in revenue. As I believe all of us in this the fiscal sustainable stabilization component. It was supposed to House would agree, this program is flawed. This program had caps be designed to protect provinces from sudden and severe shocks for that were put upon it in the ’80s, per capita caps of $60 per person government revenue, written, again, by this very Premier. The hon. per year, which really rendered this program virtually useless to the Minister of Finance just said that that is a flawed way to look at people of Alberta, and it’s a program that’s designed to provide, things. It has not benefited Alberta whatsoever. The Premier wrote again, provinces relief when they experience large drops in revenue. it. The Premier didn’t have to put into play an equalization program, Typically those provinces with more volatile revenues are but when in government, when in the federal government, that provinces that have chosen to develop their resources, so by not decision was made. Absolutely, it should be changed, but in lifting this cap, provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, retrospect maybe the Premier would like to admit that was a mistake Newfoundland have experienced discrimination in this federation. and that it shouldn’t have been put in to begin with. The federal government in their fall fiscal economic statement did Now, the other thing that I found very interesting that the minister announce that they were raising the cap from $60 to $180, but I will spoke about was the GDP growth rate rule, again introduced by this go on record tonight by stating that that is insufficient. The caps Premier while he was in cabinet. So many of the issues that we are need to be removed for this federal fiscal transfer program to work speaking about this evening, the issues that have negatively effectively. impacted Alberta and have created many of the concerns and issues As has been stated here tonight, I believe that Albertans are not around our revenue and the fact that our heritage trust fund has been against the principle of fairness and equalization across the country. depleted and all of the concerns that the hon. minister just spoke Mr. Speaker, when we as Albertans see other, largely, governments about, were put in place by the Premier. in other parts of this nation stand up and impede the infrastructure What I’m struggling with here this evening is that we are having required to continue to develop the largest industry in the nation, a conversation about a decision that the hon. Premier made when the industry that contributes over 20 per cent of the nation’s exports, he was in government, and he now wants to spend more money, the industry that generates by far and away the most wealth for more of Albertans’ money, to have an equalization referendum on Canadians on a per capita basis and on an absolute basis, when we a very issue that he created. Will that be part of the honesty that as Albertans see other governments stand in the way of that goes out to Albertans? Will he say to Albertans: “Albertans, I made necessary infrastructure while at the same time making net fiscal a mistake. I created this mess. I know how to fix it. I could have contributions to the federation of over $20 billion, we say that fixed it. I chose not to fix it, could have fixed it.” enough is enough. Tonight we’re saying that enough is enough A reminder is that this equalization formula was written in 2009. when we support Motion 83. I believe the hon. Premier was still in government until 2012, 2014? June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5271

There were lots of opportunities for the hon. Prime Minister Harper It’s a vivid picture I’m trying to paint here, Mr. Speaker, because and the hon. Premier to have gone back and been, like: oh, wait a that is the reality. Alberta has disproportionately contributed to minute; this equalization formula is going to have a very negative equalization for decades. If I recall correctly – I have some notes impact on Alberta. Fun fact: both the Prime Minister and the here – in the last 40 years it’s been somewhere in excess of $600 Premier represented Alberta in Ottawa when this very formula was billion. Between 2014 and 2019 Albertans made a net contribution written. of more than $100 billion to the federal government through I know that the hon. government members would like to say, you transfers to the rest of Canada that helped to rebuild critical know, that this is about how unfair this was, and let’s blame the infrastructure, something the hon. Minister of Finance made an current federal government. The reality of it is that the only person excellent point about, that there probably isn’t a road or school or to blame is the current Premier because the Premier wrote the piece of infrastructure in this country where Alberta doesn’t have a formulas. What I would really like to see is an equalization question small piece of that pie. put to Albertans that not only addresses the very issues that the I am grateful to Albertans for being so generous. Alberta has Premier created but gets Albertans back to work. This question always been a generous province. In fact, as recently as the doesn’t do that. It doesn’t talk about jobs. It doesn’t talk about the beginning of this pandemic, seeing the impending problem that we very issues that many of these members have spoken about, which were facing, the province went ahead and ordered excess is: how do we get our resources to market? It doesn’t talk about ventilators, masks, and other PPE to ensure that the province had diversification. It doesn’t talk about our economy whatsoever. enough. In fact, we had so much that we were able to share with What it talks about is a very serious mistake made by this Premier other provinces in need because that’s what Albertans do. But I can while he was in the federal cabinet. Until the Premier wants to stand tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Albertans are tired of feeling taken up and admit that he made the mistake, we should really be focusing advantage of. on getting Albertans back to work. 9:50 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance has 30 seconds The Member for Edmonton-Manning just rose and said that the remaining should he choose to use it. hon. Premier had an opportunity to change this formula. Well, Mr. Are there others? On Government Motion 83, the hon. Member Speaker, if I recall, 2018 was the most recent opportunity that the for Cardston-Siksika. Premier of the day had to raise the concerns about a flawed program that members on that side of the House have agreed is problematic Mr. Schow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to rise this for us, and not a peep – not a peep – from the members opposite, evening and speak on Government Motion 83 with regard to the not a peep from the Premier of the day and now Leader of Her equalization referendum here in this province. I’m going to start off Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. with a bit of a story. Last summer my wife and I bought a house in As I go through my constituency of Cardston-Siksika and I talk Cardston, put down some roots. Really happy about it. We love the with the constituents, there was a whole slew of concerns that they community we live in. We love the town of Cardston, just can’t get needed this government to address if elected in April 2019. Near enough of it. But when we moved into the house, we didn’t at the the top of that list, right up there with repealing the job-killing exact time there have a lawn mower, so the neighbours that I had, carbon tax, was to fix the equalization program, stop sending being the incredible people they are, for the first little bit, because money to Ottawa. While I understand, Mr. Speaker, we don’t just we were here in the Legislature last summer, just took it upon cut a cheque to Ottawa – that’s not how the program works – we do themselves to render an act of service. They decided to come over have an opportunity to raise this concern through a referendum. and cut the grass at my house on a couple of occasions. That is a promise we’ve made, and it is a promise that we are going I thought, you know, that is really the Alberta spirit, where you to keep. see someone maybe not necessarily in need but an opportunity to Mr. Speaker, I understand that members opposite might have serve someone else, and you help out. I, like, I suspect, all members concern with this debate, but this is actually one of the rare in this Chamber, have taken opportunities to render service to their moments when I hear very little from the opposition. In fact, scarce neighbours. However, goodwill does run out, Mr. Speaker. Imagine is a time in this Chamber when members on that side of the House for a moment a year fast-forward from the time that I purchased that don’t have anything to say. I think the last time I heard it this quiet house with my wife, and I am still depending upon my neighbours was when we were talking about the federal imposition on firearms to come over and cut my grass after I had purchased my own lawn in this province, again, another gross overstep, but that’s not the mower. point of this evening’s debate. It wasn’t that long ago that the Quebec government tabled a But, Mr. Speaker, I will stand in this Chamber on behalf of the budget, and one of the headlines was that Quebec is swimming in people of Cardston-Siksika, and I suspect that when the time comes cash. Swimming in cash. Meanwhile unemployment rates in this to vote in the event that this motion is passed this evening, without province are at an all-time high. People in some of our most vital presupposing any outcomes, Albertans will stand and voice their sectors are out of work. Families are struggling to put food on their concerns loudly and clearly that they are tired of being in a tables. At the same time, we are involved in an equalization Confederation that takes advantage of one province and program with a formula that is deeply flawed, wherein the province disproportionately puts us in a bad spot, where we’re seeing other of Quebec disproportionately accepts and, frankly, enjoys a provinces reaping the benefits of the hard work of Albertans here. tremendous financial benefit while their neighbours to the west, I have through my life lived in a number of the provinces in this here in Alberta, are struggling. If I recall correctly, I believe I even country – I lived in Nova Scotia, I lived in Ontario, I lived in B.C., delivered a member’s statement on this. They said that they’re and I’ve lived in Alberta – and visited every other one for various going to use the surplus, which I believe was around $4 billion, to reasons. There isn’t a single place that I’ve visited or lived in where lower parking fees and pay off the debt. Now, I think it’s important I would ever want to see the good people of those parts of Canada to be paying off debt. But, Mr. Speaker, how does this seem fair fail to have access to proper infrastructure, health care, education, when citizens in Quebec are enjoying lower parking fees while because we are all Canadians. We do need to look out for each some Albertans are losing their cars? other. That’s a noble cause. Again, I echo the statements of many 5272 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 members in this Chamber that we must look out for each other Bill 67 because a strong, educated, and healthy Canada is a strong country Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship Education Act and a world player. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, Albertans are not happy with the way they’ve been treated. The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or Members opposite suggest that this motion will not create jobs, amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? I see the hon. that it won’t fix the problem. Well, I understand that we have tools Member for Edmonton-North West has risen. in our tool box to address these concerns. If we can get pipelines Mr. Eggen: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the built in this province, both east and west and south, we can get our opportunity to get up and say a few words in regard to Bill 67 here products to market, something that creates jobs. But the members this evening. I think that, you know, we have an interesting opposite would sit idly by and say to just do nothing and point the opportunity here to strengthen postsecondary education generally finger and say: well, when the Premier was in Ottawa, he did and its interface with the trades and our trades schools and nothing. polytechnics in a more general way, too, both through this bill and What a sad statement, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate to hear otherwise. We have been engaging quite actively in having members from the opposition caucus say such things. It’s consultations with various trade leaderships – right? – of course, unfortunate, frankly, to hear none of them speak on this save for that have very much a lot to do with the apprenticeship programs maybe one or two members. I’m sad that we haven’t heard from across the province. the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition on this bill. I’d You know, actually, just before that, I want to say a couple of think that when we tabled this motion, it would be something words in regard to the last motion. Of course we were actively that’s vitally important to members of that caucus, but it’s dead debating the motion. We were putting up speakers. The last speaker silent over there. I understand why, because this motion is about had the audacity to say that we were not debating it, which was fairness for Alberta. falsely and patently not true, and then he adjourned debate when we One of the key things that has led to this is our inability to get our had more speakers to come. The hon. member likes to speak out of products to market, Mr. Speaker, through pipelines. But why on both sides of his mouth. He likes to play it fast and loose with the earth would members opposite want to build pipelines? They stand facts, Mr. Chair, and talks about democracy and then exactly says in this Chamber time and time again and even call points of order and does the opposite thing. But I guess we’ve been together for a when we point out their opposition to getting our resources to couple of years, and we’re used to the Member for Cardston-Siksika market and suggest that they are in favour of these pipelines, yet doing that on a regular basis. History will judge him, of course. when a chance comes to stand up for Alberta’s best interests, stand That’s the way that things work in a democracy, so God bless him, up for a fair deal in this province, I don’t hear anything. How can right? one assume that members opposite support our most vital industry 10:00 in this province or one of our most vital industries when there’s an Anyway, in regard to Bill 67, as I said before, we were engaging opportunity right here this evening to engage in debate, yet they with the leadership of apprenticeship programs around the fail? Albertans see that. They know that. Albertans are smart, province. I had said before, in earlier parts of this debate, that we industrious people, and they recognize the truth. have to make sure that we’re keeping an alignment with the Mr. Speaker, there’s certainly a lot more to say on this. I standards for trades practices across jurisdictions, across the absolutely support this motion. When the time comes, if there’s an provinces and territories, and indeed around North America and opportunity to vote in favour of getting a fair deal for Alberta, even the world in regard to certain standards for trades. That was something that the hon. members opposite clearly have not shown the premise by which we engaged the leadership of various trades much of an interest in, I will do whatever it takes. When it comes programs, and they offered us some interesting analysis that I think to this motion, which is on the question as it will appear on the is worth looking at. ballot, “Should section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, You know, as I said before, while there are some parts of this bill Parliament and the government of Canada’s commitment to the that I find quite intriguing, I think that there are some places where principle of making equalization payments, be removed from the we could make some improvements as well, so I have with me here Constitution?” absolutely. Absolutely. this evening, Mr. Chair, an amendment to Bill 67. I will pass that My colleagues have put things very eloquently this evening, and forward to you for distribution. I appreciate all of their remarks, including those from the hon. The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Premier and the Finance minister and everyone else who has spoken For everybody’s benefit, this will be referred to in debate as and uplifted and edified this debate. I have enjoyed it thoroughly. I amendment A1. As is the case, if you would like a copy, please raise am sad to see that members opposite are not engaging in this debate, your hand, and one will be delivered. There will also be copies on which tells me a whole lot. The silence speaks volumes. the tables at the entrances, and I’m sure the hon. member has With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks, and I move to probably already started the process with regard to e-mailing one to adjourn debate. the table as well. If the hon. member could please read it in for the record . . . [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Mr. Eggen: You want me to read it into the record? head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole The Deputy Chair: . . . and then continue with your comments.

[Mr. Milliken in the chair] Mr. Eggen: It’s a long one. Okay. On behalf of the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods I move that Bill 67, Skilled Trades and The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. members. I would like to call Apprenticeship Education Act, be amended (a) in section 13(1) by the committee to order. striking out “shall appoint” and substituting “shall, in accordance June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5273 with subsection (2), appoint,” and (b) by striking out subsection (2) ask – I will not determine his absence or presence or not – the and substituting the following: minister categorically: what is the definition of that specifically? (2) The Minister shall, Also, on the same page, page 4, section (j) talks about an industry (a) appoint the following as members of the Board: training program, meaning a program established under section (i) four individuals who represent employers of 4(1)(a). Again I’m just curious to know why we have a separation professionals in the designated trades; of streams from what we have presently. Why is this being broken (ii) four individuals who represent employees of into various pieces to make that determination? professionals in the designated trades; I want to move along, then, to page 6 of the bill, section 3(1). The (iii) two individuals who represent employers of minister may, talking about classroom instruction, establish professionals in trades other than designated trades; (iv) two individuals who represent employees of programs to provide individuals with classroom instruction and on- professionals in trades other than designated trades. the-job instruction in particular occupational fields. We want to just (b) designate one member as chair and one or more other have some clarification on that in regard to industry programs that members to act in the place of the chair when the chair is don’t have classroom instruction from section 4. Just looking to ask absent or otherwise unable to carry out the duties of the for clarification: what’s the difference between these two training chair. streams, and why does one have a classroom component and the Okay. By making this change, I think that it helps with a more other part does not? Again, just asking out of genuine curiosity why balanced composition of this board. Let’s not forget, Mr. Chair, that that is a separation from section 3 and section 4 as well. this board forms sort of the heart of how decisions are made around Yeah. Lots of questions in regard to this part about apprenticeship trades and so forth. I think that if I can refer people specifically to programs and specifically the board. I think that, again, to make the section in the bill, you know, we know that removing the sure that we have proper representation and that we’re using the compulsory trades is very concerning. When you are making best experiential knowledge and wisdom that are accumulated from changes like this, such a sort of categorical framework change, you both the trades, from the trade leadership, from our polytechnics, want to make sure you retain the confidence of everybody who’s from NAIT and SAIT, and that they have an active place in making involved. By making this change that my colleague from decisions about what is being taught in the curriculum, what the Edmonton-Mill Woods actually has brought forward, I think that standards are for professional practice, what the timelines are for you will go a long ways to retain and restore confidence amongst training, and to ensure the integrity of an apprenticeship program, the professionals that this bill does affect, right? including the ability for apprentices to earn a wage while they are We don’t want compulsory trades to be otherwise, you know, being trained as well – you know, again, I’ve heard conflicting watered down somehow, and we did not see any recommendation things around how we should update and what the evolution of for this being done, right? We know that if we look at other apprenticeship training programs is. jurisdictions, in British Columbia, for example, they did make this 10:10 change and made moves to other forms of credentialing, including microcredentialing. I’m just curious to know if that’s the direction We need to make sure that whatever changes we’re making, we that the minister is moving or the department is moving in regard to are providing funding and backing to allow our apprentices and our this change. I think that we need to know. polytechnics to pay for those changes and to support those changes. We deserve to know and we need to know what the impacts of I don’t ever doubt that we need to always support the continual that are going to be as well. Where is the devolution of accreditation evolution and development of education programs generally and moving to? What’s the direction here? We have a new framework. curriculum specifically, to make sure we’re in pace and in What specifically are we pointing at here? I think, again, I brought synchronization with industrial practices in other jurisdictions this up in second reading, but I’ll do it again. I mean, we really need around the world, but we always have to aspire to the highest level. to make sure that we are not watering down payments and wages We cannot just sort of, perhaps, look for some mediocre middle to for skilled professionals and for apprentices as well. Part of the aim for but, rather, for the very, very best every step of the way. reason that we have such a high success rate for employment Yeah. These are some of the things that my hon. colleague has through the apprenticeship program is that, you know, people get built into this amendment, and I hope that each MLA here this paid along the way. It’s not like you have to wait for four or five evening will consider this in a constructive way to make the bill years before you get a paycheque for your new profession. You do, better for everyone. Thank you. through the journeyman process, engage in employment and The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. member. remuneration right from the beginning, right? Are there any members wishing to join debate? I see the hon. We want to make sure that we do not, you know, enter into a Minister of Advanced Education has risen. process of deskilling various trades as well. We have, as I said before, the standards that are taken from province to province and Mr. Nicolaides: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the territories as well. These standards are established and maintained member for his interjections and contributions to the debate on the by not just teachers but by the professionals who engage in the trade bill. I apologize to the member opposite. I didn’t get to catch all of in the first place. Industry needs to make sure that they are hitting his questions, but I did make some notes. If I don’t get to them, that standard for, let’s say, electrical construction or whatever perhaps one of his colleagues or someone else in part of the debate profession it happens to be – carpentry, plumbing, pipefitting, and can fill me in. I’d be happy to address them. so forth – and people need to know that there is an industrial standard that they can depend on for the structure that’s being built Ms Sweet: Here to help. and what have you. I just want to refer the House here this evening, then, to various Mr. Nicolaides: Here to help. Good. parts of the bill specifically. If you can open your Bill 67 to page 4, Perhaps I’ll just jump in on the one part. The member was you will see, you know, a couple of places there. There’s section speaking specifically around section 3 and some questions around 1(e), talking about an apprenticeship education program. I think that the separation between training that includes classroom instruction this needs to be defined in a more systemic sort of way, so I would and training that does not, that falls into the categorization of on- 5274 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 the-job training. This is actually a carry-over from the current AIT and others, of course, as we look at constituting the board, it’s an Act. The AIT Act does provide flexibility for employers to provide absolute imperative and priority that employers are represented on very specific and nuanced training programs that meet their very the board, that postsecondary institutions and that representatives particular needs, so this isn’t a new creation. This is actually a carry- from the diverse community of Alberta’s apprenticeship system over of legislative provisions that exist within the current AIT Act. more broadly are represented on the board. That’s not the case It does provide for and give that flexibility to make that separation today. between instruction that occurs in the classroom and instruction that Currently, as it stands today, our postsecondary institutions – for occurs in on-the-job training. Again, it’s usually for very nuanced example, our incredible polytechnics such as NAIT and SAIT and and specific instances where an employer needs to create some very our other colleges that deliver apprenticeship and trades nuanced on-the-job training. programming – don’t actually have a seat at the table on our current Apart from that, just coming quickly back to the amendment that AIT Board, which I think is problematic. We have to take steps to we have in front of us regarding the composition of the board, bring our stakeholders together, bring them to the same board, to unfortunately I’m going to have to encourage my colleagues and the same committee, to the same table so that we can work on other members of the House to vote against the amendment. The developing a much more integrated and cohesive ecosystem. Again, reason for that, Mr. Chair, is just that the amendment that the the benefits of doing that are clear as day. It helps to create a higher member has brought forward on behalf of his colleague is simply quality apprenticeship system and improves the outcomes more too prescriptive, and this is one of the challenges that we’re trying broadly for our province. to address in the development of the new bill. Actually, I’m just realizing I’m only answering one of the I’ll take the opportunity to remind all members of the House that member’s questions, that he had around section 3. I know he had the foundations for this piece of legislation come from the some more, but I’m sure his colleagues will . . . recommendations of the Skills for Jobs Task Force. Rewind to 2019. We convened a panel of experts, including postsecondary Ms Sweet: I’ll ask again. institution presidents, trade representatives, union leaders, and Mr. Nicolaides: They’ll ask some more, as my colleague is others, to conduct a very thorough assessment about the state of mentioning. Alberta’s trades and apprenticeship system, and that group provided I’ll just end there because I know there will be some more their final report. Of course, that’s available online for everyone to questions. I’m happy to address those at a later point, Mr. Chair. explore that report in more detail. The task force, apart from their own analysis that they did, also engaged in extensive consultation The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. with apprentices, with journeypersons, with unions, with Are there any members wishing to join on A1? I see the hon. postsecondary institutions. Again, all of that information is Member for Edmonton-West Henday has risen. contained in their report, that you can explore. But one of the things – just quickly, Mr. Chair. Again, a lot of Mr. Carson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s an honour to rise to speak their recommendations are the conceptual foundations and to this amendment. I thank the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods underpinnings for this legislation. That’s why we built the for bringing it forward, and I appreciate, first of all, the minister’s legislation the way that we did, because it was based on the advice, willingness to rise and speak to, well, to some extent, what we’re guidance, and recommendations of this expert panel. One of the seeing in this amendment and to some other pieces, which I know things that they did comment – and, again, if you don’t believe me, we will have ample – well, I guess I don’t want to guarantee that you can pull up the report and have a look at it. One of the things since I don’t necessarily know, but I hope that we have ample that they mentioned over and over again in the report was the need opportunities to speak in committee to some of the other issues that to look at the development of a modern governance framework. the Member for Edmonton-North West brought up as well as the They noted very specifically around – they made comments to minister. I thank both of them for their contributions so far. challenges around structural rigidity, challenges around a governance framework that isn’t very flexible. In order for us to 10:20 ensure that we have a nimble, responsive, and adaptable trades Now, you know, when we look at this, I would echo the system for the benefit of all of our skilled trades professionals and, comments of my colleague from Edmonton-North West. When we subsequently, our incredible province, it’s essential that we have a look at this legislation as a whole – and we’ll get to the amendment legislative framework that allows us to operate in a nimble and in just one second, Mr. Chair – the government has told us that this responsive way. is all good news, that it’s essentially fully supported by stakeholders Currently under the AIT Act the board composition is incredibly in the industry, whether they be educators, whether they be people prescriptive, which is why in the draft bill that we have before the that potentially make up some of the committees that we see within Assembly, we didn’t take the approach of developing a very the industry that fall under the legislation, and whether we look at prescriptive criteria as to how many individuals should come from the union side of things the minister even brought up. employers or employees, how many representatives should come But the fact is that while we see pieces within this legislation that from postsecondary institutions, but we wanted to ensure that we I can see myself supporting, you know, when we listen to the had some flexible options there. So that’s my significant concern messaging from this government about the idea that we need to with the amendment, that it kind of takes us back to a very essentially value the contributions or value the education of those prescriptive approach to determining composition of the new board trades workers, those skilled trades workers, those apprentices and of trades, and I think that that would just continue to create journeypersons within our communities and within our province problems for us and for the betterment of our apprenticeship that are working within the current system, again, Mr. Chair, I feel system. like, in many ways, this legislation contradicts that idea entirely. Again, I have to encourage members to reject this amendment. I would say that in this section is a perfect example of where I’m not sure if the member opposite has other amendments or his we’re seeing that contradiction take place. Again, when we look at colleagues have other amendments, but happy to look at those and what’s proposed in 13(2) on page 14 of Bill 67, we see that “the debate those in more detail. But I can assure the member opposite Minister shall designate one member as chair and one or more other June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5275 members to act” – oh, excuse me; I’m actually reading the wrong of skilled trades professionals – I think that if you asked somebody section. My apologies. We’re just adding this, Mr. Chair. that’s on one of the current committees or boards compared to what 13(1) The Minister shall appoint a board to be known as the the minister might believe is somebody that’s experienced in the “Alberta Board of Skilled Trades” consisting of not more than 15 trades and knowledgeable in the trades, that might even be different. individuals who, in the opinion of the Minister . . . Again, we’re being asked to support the idea and the opinion of And that’s where I start to struggle with what we’re seeing in this the minister when it comes to such an important aspect of the legislation, but I’ll continue. apprenticeship system, of the education system, of how that is . . . are knowledgeable with respect to the contribution of skilled delivered, potentially about the wages within the industry. There trades professions to Alberta’s economic sectors and the needs of are so many things that are going to be left up to this board or have the Alberta labour market for skilled and trained individuals. been in the past, potentially. Again, we’re seeing changes to what Now, I know that I can think back to several times that we’ve this board is going to be able to do compared to some of the past seen before this House where legislation is prescriptive in the fact committees, depending on what changes have been there, another that it becomes: “in the opinion of the Minister.” I think a very great concern of people within the industry. We’re being asked to powerful example of that, which this government has done a just trust the minister. Too many times, Mr. Chair, we have put faith complete one-eighty on, is through Bill 10. That, of course, was a or Albertans have put faith in that minister, and I believe that much more powerful instance, where the minister gives themselves through the consultation process again and again one thing is large amounts of power to make decisions. Now what we’re seeing promised, one thing is committed to, and we see that in the end the here: again, the language of “in the opinion of the Minister,” taking results are much different than that consultation process promised the power away from what we currently have within the industry, or what was promised by that minister through that process. which, I would say, strikes a more fair balance than what is being It’s not hard, I believe, to question what this legislation is going offered in section 13(1) on page 14 of this legislation. to mean for the trades. I think that it’s important that we question This minister is telling us again, like we’ve seen in many other that. I think that we’ve already seen hundreds of millions of dollars instances before this Legislature, that Albertans should simply trust taken out of the postsecondary ministry or from our institutions the opinion of the minister. Now, it’s hard, again, Mr. Chair, to across the province because of the decisions of this minister and the simply support or agree with the opinion of the minister. I think that Minister of Finance. So we are very concerned, when we start while I can appreciate that the minister has said that the current talking about changing the composition of boards, about potentially wording of the legislation is too prescriptive, what we are proposing changing how education rolls out. through this amendment is a much better, a much fairer balance than You know, we look at and I had to opportunity to speak to the what is proposed within section 13(1) of Bill 67 as proposed. idea that currently you pay up front as an apprentice to go take these Again, we look at the breakdown of what is offered in this courses, and if you pass those courses, you get reimbursed. When amendment: “four individuals who represent employers of we look through this legislation, I’m very concerned that that could professionals in the designated trades” balanced by “four potentially change, depending on if different institutions are individuals who represent employees . . . in the designated trades.” offering this programming or, more specifically, if corporations on It goes on to talk about “two individuals who represent employers a larger scale become more able to provide that programming. The of professionals in trades other than designated trades” and “two same goes for the potential to see things like unpaid internships individuals who represent employees of professionals in trades even. I hope that the minister is willing to commit that we wouldn’t other than designated trades.” Again, we’re looking at striking a necessarily see something like that taking place, but the fact is that balance between compulsory trade experience and, potentially, we have a system in Alberta where workers are able to get paid and optional or designated trade experience, and we need to strike that earn credits towards those programs with on-the-job-site training, balance. Unfortunately, throughout this legislation, which we’ll and I would hate to see major overhauls or major changes or even have more opportunities to speak to here this evening, I believe that two sets of systems, depending on where you get your education we have not struck a proper balance. There are many questions left from. from stakeholders within the industry that are concerned about the While that might not be specific to the amendment that’s before decisions that this government is making through this legislation, us, I think that the decisions that are going to be made by the Alberta the idea that we’re weakening the idea of compulsory trades, and board of skilled trades are important decisions on a wide variety of question what we are going to see moving forward around issues within the industry, and I think that it is important that we education, around qualifications, around safety on the job sites, strike the right balance with the composition of this board around training. specifically. I mean, there’s a lot to digest in this legislation. Again, I So while the minister talks about this being too prescriptive, I appreciate that in some instances within Bill 67 I think we will be think that this is not something that should be left up to the able to support certain pieces, but there is just so much that this minister’s decision, his opinion of who is and who isn’t minister is trying to change within the trades industry. Again, while knowledgeable within the industry. I think that we need to strike a the minister says that it’s the right decision in all aspects of this right balance, and in our time in government I believe that we legislation to get people back to work – of course, that needs to be always did our best, when we were talking about making changes our number one priority – and ensuring the long-term viability of to boards, to strike the right balance between employers and trades within our province, I simply do not see that throughout this employees. Again, this amendment leaves three seats open out of legislation, and I do not see it specific to 13(1). the 15 for the minister to have that opinion, but in no way, shape, Again, on page 14 we talk about “the opinion of the Minister” or form, Mr. Chair, do I believe that the minister should have the and that minister’s ability to appoint not more than 15 individuals opportunity to have an opinion on all 15 without any accountability to this board who are, you know, “knowledgeable with respect to to this House and to the legislation itself. the contribution of skilled trades professions.” I mean, I question what that really means, Mr. Chair. Whether we’re talking to 10:30 somebody on the street or somebody that works in the trade, I think Mr. Chair, there are a lot more, many more, points that I am going their idea of what knowledgeable is with respect to the contribution to have the opportunity to, hopefully, speak to within Bill 67. I think 5276 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 that, again, while there are certain pieces in here that I see myself actually no change there, Mr. Chair, from the 30-year-old AIT Act. being able to support in the hopes that it will strengthen our I’d encourage the member to have a look at section 2 of the current apprenticeship system, that it will strengthen the education system AIT Act. It reads as follows: that we offer our apprentices, that it will create more opportunities 2(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint a within the job market for Albertans who are looking to become board . . . known as the “Alberta Apprenticeship and Industry certified and qualified within these industries, the fact that we are Training Board” consisting of not more than 13 persons who, in muddying the waters around the idea of compulsory trades through the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, are this legislation, that we haven’t been able to get a commitment or a knowledgeable with respect to training in trades and occupations willingness to strengthen the language within this legislation, that a and the needs of the Alberta labour market for skilled and trained persons. lot of people within the industry are scratching their heads but more So it’s the exact same discretion, a minor adjustment, of course. so are concerned about the prospects of what they might believe to The current AIT Act stipulates that the board appointment must be be opportunities here for this government to try and drive down made through an order in council, must be made by the Lieutenant wages, to try and drive down educational opportunities for Governor. We found an opportunity to make that process a little Albertans. more streamlined and reduce red tape by allowing that to be done With that, Mr. Chair, I would encourage all members of the through a ministerial order. But the fundamental power and House to support the amendment as proposed by the Member for discretion are still the same. There’s actually no change. So I’m not Edmonton-Mill Woods. I know that that member has spent an sure why the member has concerns about that appointment process extensive amount of time consulting on these issues, not only in her when that’s the model we currently operate and the model that that role as the critic but in her role as the minister for this very member operated under when they were government. There’s not a important file. I know that these are conversations that were started major deviation there in terms of determining who is back then and continue to this day and that we, again, need to do knowledgeable. our best whenever we are looking at board composition or the idea Furthermore, just coming back to this amendment, looking a little of creating boards that are going to offer input on the apprenticeship closer, this amendment is actually copy-pasted right out of the old system and the direction on the future of these systems, that we need AIT Act. The AIT Act stipulates under subsection (2)(b), “4 to do everything we can to find balance. I simply do not believe that members representing the interests of employers,” et cetera, et within Bill 67, as proposed by this minister, it strikes the right cetera, exactly as is articulated here. What this amendment is balance, and I hope that we will find support for this amendment. proposing to do is take us back 30 years, back to the designation Thank you. and the arrangement of the board as it’s articulated in the old act, and we know through our panel of experts who have told us that The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. member. this needs to be updated. We need to update it to build a more We are on amendment A1. I see the hon. Minister of Advanced nimble and responsive system. Again, I don’t know how going back Education has risen. is the right way to move forward and build a stronger apprenticeship system. Mr. Nicolaides: Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I’m happy to respond I just wanted to comment very briefly on those points. I know to some of the questions and comments from the member opposite. there’ll perhaps be some more questions. Happy to address those as I just want to address an important point – I referenced it earlier – well. in terms of how this bill came to be and, you know, what the Also, just very quickly, I believe the member made some foundations for this piece of legislation were. I’m not certain – the comments about potential for, you know, unpaid apprenticeships member opposite referenced, talked a little bit about conducting a and concerns around there. I mean, just to be clear, one of the consultation process and then having a different outcome from what foundational elements of an apprenticeship is that you have a job. was promised in the consultation process. I’m not really sure about That’s a critical underlying element of an apprenticeship. You can’t that. Maybe the member can give some more specifics. begin an apprenticeship if you don’t have a job. So I’m not sure I’ll read to you, if I can, Mr. Chair, right directly from the Skills how unpaid internships would be involved in that equation. for Jobs Task Force, which, again, was an expert panel of But happy to address those points. Hopefully, I was able to individuals we convened to evaluate the state of Alberta’s provide some more clarity for the member opposite. I’m confident apprenticeship system, provide recommendations to government there’ll be some more questions. about how to improve our apprenticeship system. They said, right Thank you, Mr. Chair. here: The fifth group of recommendations concerns governance and The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. roles. Foremost, the Task Force recommends that the Are there any members looking to join on A1? I see the hon. Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act must be fully Member for Edmonton-Manning has risen. rewritten. It . . . no longer meets the current and emerging needs of Alberta. New legislation needs to be principles-based, nimble, Ms Sweet: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s an honour to rise and and flexible. System roles need to be clarified and strengthened speak to the amendment as proposed by the hon. Member for and governance models updated. Edmonton-Mill Woods. I have been listening to the minister’s You can see exactly how we’ve taken that precise conclusion comments tonight. Of course, as you probably heard, we’re here to from a panel of experts, who, I believe, we can all agree know our help, and we’re here to ask more questions if needed to be asked. apprenticeship system probably better than all of us, and how we’ve You know, as I was listening to some of his comments and the applied that in the development of this piece of legislation. Going things that he was speaking about, he went through the amendment back to a prescriptive model does not allow us to achieve the goals and what it is that we’re asking to be put in place when it comes to of being nimble, flexible, and adaptable. Furthermore, I understand the board. Now, the minister did make comments to say, “Well, this that the member opposite has some concerns with the minister was in the old act” and that the government was told in consultation being able, as per the minister’s discretion, to appoint the members to update the act. Well, sure; some things maybe needed to be of the board, but that’s actually how it currently operates. There’s changed. Fair enough. But just because you can change an act June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5277 doesn’t mean you need to change the whole thing all the time. There ensure, within the structure of the seats that exist, that there is going might be actually some good things that existed in the act before to be a fair representation of employers and employees from that could be moved forward into the new, updated amendment to professional designation trades as well as employers and employees the legislation. from trades other than designated trades? You have to have both You know, I think there’s fairness in the fact that my colleague voices. has gone back and said: “You know, this did work. This was Postsecondary? Sure. Diverse communities? Well, I mean, I something that made sense.” It was equitable in the context that you would think that we could look at making sure the voices of diverse had both representations of employers, representations of communities are both employers and employees. But when you’re employees, both from the designated trades but also from discussing looking at a structure of a board that’s going to be professions within the designated trades. You have under all of addressing some of these very issues, and looking at the definition, these: four individuals who represent employers of professions in you want to make sure that you have voices that are going to designated trades, four individuals who represent employees of represent all of the issues. professions in designated trades, two individuals who represent Again, I think that if we even look at the optional certification employers of professions in trades other than designated trades, and trades, an employee working in an optional certification trade and then two individuals who represent employees of professions in learning the trade must become a registered apprentice if that trades other than designated trades. Now, I appreciate that the employee is to work in the trade. minister also said, you know, when listing off what would be An individual is permitted to work in an optional certification important to him on a panel: people from postsecondary – okay – trade if the employer deems the individual to have the skills and diverse communities, absolutely, employers. What I did not hear knowledge expected of a certified [journeyman] in the trade. the minister say was: employees or the working people. He may Employers may employ uncertified [journeymen] and . . . have missed that part. Again, I would like to remind the minister uncertified journeypersons to supervise and train apprentices on that when you’re talking about trades, you might actually want to the job. talk to the tradesmen or tradespeople that are working in those Again, this is why it’s so important that you have both the areas. This would do that. employer and the employee, because you are actually asking, an employer would be asking, an employee to be responsible for the 10:40 supervision of anyone who may be considered an uncertified Now, I think that when we look at the current definition of journeyperson. What does that look like? Well, I’m sure those will designated trade certificates that’s found on the Alberta be discussions that would happen at this board. Again, how do you government website under their list of compulsory and optional ensure that the expectations of both the employer and the employee certified trades, you will see under the definition of a compulsory are being met so that the workplace and the relationships between certified trade that those who are educating and training our new tradespeople have the to work in a compulsory [certified] trade, a person must either understanding, the knowledge to be able to do that? That can’t hold a recognized trade certificate or be a registered apprentice happen if both voices aren’t sitting at the board. If there are tools in the trade. An employer wishing to hire persons to work in the that are needed, if there’s feedback on changes to curriculum that trade must hire only certified journeypersons in that trade or apprentices registered in the trade and working under the may need to happen, an employer may have a definition or an supervision of a certified journeyperson. Compulsory understanding of a change to a curriculum that makes sense to them. certification trades usually involve work where public and It may be then put into practice by a journeyperson, who might be, worker safety needs to be closely monitored. like: whoa; this isn’t going to work; I can’t implement it the way It’s on the website. that you’re asking me to and feel like I am actually training Given that it is explicitly here, when we’re talking about the someone to have the skills that they will need to have when they definition of compulsory certified trades, the question that I would move forward in their career. have when we’re looking at redesigning the board and looking at I just think there’s fairness in this conversation. If the minister who would be represented on the board is – if you don’t have the feels that this is too prescriptive, my question would be: how is he, working people and the voice of the working people, the very the government going to ensure confidence to those working in the definition where it includes “where public and worker safety needs trades, those employing people within the trades, the relationship to be closely monitored” becomes a question mark because, as we with the postsecondary institutions that all voices are going to heard know, when we’re looking at trade work, occupational health and in collaboration, that the issues that are being addressed even within safety is paramount. We want to make sure that people that are the definition of these trades are going to be met and that also these working in these areas – because, of course, they’re anything from definitions aren’t going to change, that the requirement around service techs to autobody techs, boilermakers, elevator public safety and worker safety is not going to magically disappear? constructors, gas fitters, plumbers, hairstylists, heavy equipment I think that that’s a conversation that could potentially happen at techs, welders, – all of these professions – have safety measures that this board. If we don’t have both employers and employees talking need to be in place to ensure that not only those who are working and being represented, then there needs to be some guarantee and on those sites but also the environments around those sites are transparency around what this board structure will look like. always being kept to the safest standard possible. I would really appreciate if the minister could maybe answer Now, when we look at occupational health and safety some of those questions in relation to: if it won’t be designed this committees, it’s always been a recommendation from the way, where will the accountability and the reporting of this opposition that we make sure that we have both employees and information be provided to the public to ensure that they know that employers in those conversations because you want to ensure that both employers’ and employees’ voices are being heard in the there is a clear understanding from both sides of what that means designated and nondesignated trades? when it comes to safety. When we look at this and we hear from the minister that this is The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. member. too prescriptive and, you know, that there needs to be more Are there any members wishing to join? I see the hon. Minister flexibility, well, okay. My question would then be: how do you of Advanced Education. 5278 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021

Mr. Nicolaides: Well, thank you again, Mr. Chair. Of course, it’s new apprenticeships, to look at occupations like perhaps coding or incredibly important that we have the voice of employers and cybersecurity or banking – I believe the sky is the limit here – and employees. They’re all incredibly important elements of our educate and train Albertans into those careers, into those new and apprenticeship system. As we build out the rest of the governance emerging careers and fields through an apprenticeship-style system framework, there’ll be many opportunities to ensure that we build whereby you learn that trade and those skills by working, a strong ecosystem. Apart from the board, we also have to look at supplemented, of course, by academic training. the development of other committees that the new bill will be From what I understand, other provinces are looking at this. I replacing and building those committees in a new way that will help actually just the other day had an opportunity to talk to one of my ensure that those different voices are represented and are included, counterparts in Ontario, who was incredibly intrigued by what we and we need to ensure that those voices have accurate are doing within the context of expanding apprenticeships. We need representation so that we can build the strongest possible to make sure that we are looking forward and that we build an apprenticeship system. There’s no intention – and this isn’t desired apprenticeship system that, yes, will satisfy the needs and demands – to try and cut anybody out of the process and not have their voice of our society today but also gives us the opportunity to create heard. modern and new apprenticeships as well. I do truly believe that We already went through a process through the expert panel of there is great opportunity to create an environment where more consulting extensively on getting this far. We still have a lot more Albertans can receive a postsecondary credential and be trained for work to do because we have a lot to define through regulation in specific occupations through an apprenticeship model of delivery. I terms, including the governance structure. Yes, we have a board, think there’s incredible potential, and I think all members would but what other subcommittees, regional committees will be agree. included as part of that governance framework? We’re going to be That’s why I have serious concerns with this amendment. Why reaching out to our stakeholders, to members currently on would we go back to a governance model that a panel of experts has committees, to employers and employees to understand how we told us is too rigid, doesn’t allow us to be nimble, and needs should build that framework and ensure that their voices are at the significant updating and needs an environment that provides table. Absolutely, we do want to make sure that those voices are flexibility. Again, the members opposite can reject my point of heard and will be ensured to develop the right governance view, and that’s totally fine, but I encourage them to look at the framework and model so that all those voices are accurately point of view of the experts that reviewed this. Again, that included represented. postsecondary presidents, union members, employers, employees, I agree with the member. The member mentioned earlier, you quite a diverse panel that we struck to develop that. know, that there are some good provisions. I talked about the 30- I’m happy to respond to those questions, and again I’m sure year-old act. There are some good provisions that should carry over. there’ll be some more later on. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely, I fully agree. There are many instances where we’ve done that. I mentioned one earlier about the power and The Deputy Chair: Thank you. authority of the minister or, in the old legislation, the Lieutenant We are on A1. I see the hon. Member for Edmonton-City Centre Governor to appoint the board. We’ve kind of copied that word for has risen. word. Other enforcement measures we’ve carried over. We built Mr. Shepherd: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity upon the strengths. to speak to Bill 67, the Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship 10:50 Education Act, and in particular amendment A1. Just to clarify But one area where it clearly didn’t work was around the again what we are talking about with amendment A1, we are governance, where we do need to make some changes, and that’s proposing to return a section which lays out eight of a larger number why, again, this amendment is problematic, because it’s just going of members, in this case an expanded number of 15 that the minister right back to what is currently in the AIT Act. That’s not going to has laid out, that we identify a few particular groups that have a help. Unfortunately, I lost my bookmark on the Skills for Jobs Task stake in this to ensure that they are represented on that board. That’s Force; I know the member opposite is probably very disappointed. the amendment that we’re bringing forward after the minister has But there are many sections – and I’ll find them at a future point removed that. and point them out for her – where they talk at length about the Now, the minister has spoken several times about the report from governance model, about the structural challenges, the framework the Skills for Jobs Task Force, and he points to that to say that that that’s too rigid, and the need to build a nimble and flexible system. is his justification because the previous legislation, he said, was too They talk about that at length, not just once or twice but multiple prescriptive, specifically talking about this board, what we’re times throughout the report. talking about here. The minister is saying that what the panel said We have to take their advice. They’re the experts. They know the – being too prescriptive, not being nimble enough, not being system better than I do and, again, I would argue, perhaps better flexible enough – applies specifically to this board. Now, what we than many of us here. They’re on the ground. They are the unions, actually see in the report is that they talk about the act as a whole. the employers, the postsecondary professionals. They know the They do in fact, as the minister noted, state “that the Apprenticeship system, and they have commented, again, extensively and come to and Industry Training Act must be fully rewritten. It is a conclusion in their report that the governance framework, very anachronistic and no longer meets the current and emerging needs” specifically the governance framework, is too rigid and needs to be of Albertans. Fair enough. So the minister has brought new much more nimble, to be adaptable and flexible to help us as a legislation. We don’t have a disagreement with that. society and as a province respond to changing economic conditions, They go on to say that the “new legislation needs to be principles- changing labour market needs and demands and, furthermore, take based, nimble, and flexible,” again speaking about the legislation our apprenticeship system to the next level. as a whole. Speaking about it as a whole. They also then, I would Within this legislation it gives us the ability to do something very note, directly after that sentence state that the “system roles need to innovative that I don’t believe any other province in Canada is be clarified and strengthened” – the roles: who’s operating within currently exploring and looking at, which is the potential to grow that system, who holds positions, who has what power; fair enough June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5279

– “and the governance models updated.” Now, the governance 11:00 model, to be clear, Mr. Chair, is the framework, again, who is in Those are all things that I think we are all going to recognize are charge of what, so the different boards, bodies, people that occupy going to continue to exist regardless of what changes happen, what that. The minister has introduced a new governance model. He has evolutions happen, what new innovations come within the trades taken away the AIT Board, and he has replaced it with his new and apprenticeship system. There will still be employees and board. That is the governance model. That is the governance employers. According to the minister there are still going to be system. designated trades of some sort, and there may be nondesignated Now, who sits on that board is not the governance model. Those trades. Unless there is some other massive transformation coming are the governors. Those are the people that do the work. What the here that the minister is not telling us about, I don’t see how these panel was talking about is the system, the bodies, who is going to categories line up as being too prescriptive, particularly when the occupy what, again, in terms of the larger framework. They do not, minister still gets to appoint seven other members of this board that to the best of my reading, unless the minister can correct me, at any he has established with 15 members from wherever he likes. But point actually address the members who occupy those seats. I have this minister, Mr. Chair, is not satisfied with that. He insists that he been unable so far to find anywhere in the report where they should be able to appoint all 15 members regardless of any specifically identify to say: we need to make sure the minister has consideration, without restriction, without any checks and balances more flexibility about who he appoints to the board; it’s too on behalf of the people of Alberta. I fundamentally do disagree with prescriptive; he does not have enough choice. him on that given that what we are seeing here, basically, is that There is a significant difference, Mr. Chair, between being they are saying that we have to put full trust in the minister, in his nimble and flexible with some reasonable clarity and some checks judgment alone, to make the determination of who should be and balances and having entire carte blanche. As a musician, represented here, particularly given that we have seen how poor the someone who studied jazz and improvisation and who’s had the judgment of a minister of can be. opportunity to work with many, many people in the creative arts, I We’ve had many examples just recently. We have, for example, can assure the minister it is entirely possible to be nimble and a Health minister who apparently either doesn’t understand or was flexible within basic boundaries. One does not have to be unwilling to follow the public health restrictions that he is, in fact, completely unfettered in an open field with absolutely nothing largely responsible for. That is the judgment of a current minister putting any boundaries or constrictions on you to be nimble and of the Crown. We have a Minister of Environment and Parks who flexible. Indeed, some of the most creative people, some of the rescinded the long-standing protection for the eastern slopes to greatest geniuses are people that know how to work in systems. throw open the doors for coal mining against the wishes of Albert Einstein, a brilliant physicist and mathematician: yeah, he Albertans. Indeed, that’s a minister, again, who is required to do actually came up with some new rules and stuff in physics, but he consultation to understand and did not do so, having to backtrack actually knew how to work within the formulas and the boundaries, rather badly on that now. Again, in this situation we are saying and he was incredibly nimble and flexible. that we have a minister who is saying that he must be given I do not buy this minister’s argument that having some basic unfettered, unrestricted control, yet we know that we have seen requirements for eight members of a board of 15 is too prescriptive, such poor judgment. Indeed, the Minister of Environment and that it somehow keeps him from being able, makes sure he’s unable, Parks also seemed to fail to understand the public health to actually do the work that needs to be done to create a board. restrictions that his cabinet chose to put in place, the cabinet Again, he’s already defined the governance system here, as which he is part of. recommended. He’s rebuilding it as was recommended here by the Again, talking about this bill, Bill 67, and the minister’s report, but we’re talking now about the individuals that sit on that contention that we must entirely trust his and only his judgment board. despite the clear stakeholders that are in place in regard to who He talked about building committees in a new way, making sure should sit on this board: we have a Minister of Finance, speaking of those voices are having representation but not wanting, Mr. Chair, bad judgment, who fails to understand the principle of maximizing any way to actually guarantee which voices are going to be heard. returns and tracking the actual results in terms of investing not only He talks about those structural challenges, those governance issues. the pensions of Alberta’s teachers but potentially the pension He talks about: well, we have to be able to adapt to a changing investments of all Albertans; and, of course, a Minister of economy, changing apprenticeship systems. I cannot imagine any Advanced Education, who we’re speaking of now, who contends that he should be given sole discretion in regard to the makeup of future economy that will not have employers and employees, two this board, who is doing incredible damage to our province’s simple categories. You may change many things about the advanced education system, and indeed, if I recall correctly, was apprenticeship – unless this minister is not, in fact, a fan of the one of the first to make sweeping changes to the boards of capitalist system, we are going to continue to have employers and governors in the province with little to no notice for many of the employees. To have it in the legislation, to make sure that that members that were currently sitting there at the time that this representation is going to be there at the table, that representation government came in. which the minister himself has stated needs to be heard – he said That aside, I imagine my perceptions of the trustworthiness and, that is essential, yet he balks at a simple requirement that out of 15 certainly, the level of judgment of ministers of this government people at that board, we simply have four individuals who represent probably differs from the minister himself and members of the employers, professionals in the designated trades, and again that’s government though, certainly, there have been a number of open for definition. That can flex an awful lot with the changing government members lately, or caucus members anyway, who’ve apprenticeship system, Mr. Chair: four individuals that represent expressed their own concerns about the judgment of their ministers. employees of professionals in designated trades, then two Again returning simply to what we have here, the contention that individuals, employers of professionals in trades other than the minister is making: I do not see in the pieces that he is quoting designated, and two that represent the employees in trades other from this report that they are referring specifically to the makeup of than designated. this board, and that is because, Mr. Chair, they are not. They are 5280 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 talking about the larger concern with the legislation. They are there, and then, you know, anybody else that the minister or talking about the larger concerns with the entire governance model government wants to appoint can also be included. and system. But I think they are quite clear about who has a stake I mean, this amendment, again, doesn’t accomplish – if the goal in this situation. is to ensure that all stakeholders are at the table, this amendment They note specifically in the report that the AIT Board is doesn’t accomplish that. It’s important that we in the board have “responsible for setting entrance requirements for apprenticeship that flexibility. You know, the players may change; we need a education as well as credit recognition.” They note that there is a dynamic model. We need to be able to do that. If we wanted to make “network of provincial and local industry committees . . . [that] any changes, we have to come back and open up the legislation, support the development of these standards” and that the purpose which we know is a very difficult and lengthy and time-consuming of the board is to provide “recommendations to government on process, to make some changes to the governance model, and that education and certification standards for designated trade doesn’t help us to achieve the goal that the task force noted, of professions.” Again, Mr. Chair, in what situation would you not creating a nimble and responsive system. want to ensure that you have employers of professionals in the 11:10 designated trades providing recommendations to government on the education and certification standards for those designated trades or Now, I mean, perhaps it’s up to a degree of interpretation. You the employees who will be affected by that, who themselves are know, the member talked about: well, that’s the governance participating in and affected by that system, and since we are framework that they’re talking about that needs to be nimble. looking at the expansion of this, then, doing the same for the Maybe he sees that as excluding the board, but the board, in my employers and employees of professionals in trades other than the view, is a central part of that governance framework. It’s a critical designated trades. part. When the committee, when the panel, when the task force talks But the minister insists that he must have the flexibility to at length about the governance framework and the need to potentially appoint none of those, that it is too restrictive to give modernize it and make it more nimble and adaptable, again, in my Albertans the assurance that whatever minister sits in that seat either mind, that includes the board, and that includes the entire now or in the future, we’ll always ensure that we have the key framework, from the board to the 160-plus local committees and stakeholders who are involved in the system, who are impacted by provincial committees and the whole structure. this system, who are tasked with operating this system at the key I just lost my place here, but I think I’ll find it. Here it is again. table for the board that provides these recommendations to the In section 5 on page 36 of the task force report, where they go into government. a lot more detail, they note specifically, “This provides an For that reason, I am in support of this amendment. It is not opportunity.” Excuse me; I’ll go back a sentence. “The Act, and overly restrictive. If the minister finds that it does not allow him to accompanying regulations, needs to be fully rewritten. This be nimble enough, perhaps he needs to get some better dance provides an opportunity to modernize [our] system roles and lessons. governance models” – we might disagree what governance models Thank you, Mr. Chair. mean; I interpret that to include the board, which is a critical part of the governance – “that will reduce red tape and improve flexibility The Deputy Chair: Thank you hon. member. and nimbleness.” Are there any members wishing – I see that the hon. Minister of Again, it’s very clear what the task force, what the panel is Advanced Education has risen. looking for in terms of if we want to take a principle-based approach in the development of the new legislation. It’s very clear what Mr. Nicolaides: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn’t catch the last part. they’re looking for. Let’s apply that lens to the board, to the other I think the member commented that I might need better dancing pieces that we’re going to detail in the legislation because that’s the shoes. If that’s what he said, he’s right. I have terrible dancing philosophy that they’re coming from. Let’s apply that philosophical shoes. If he has any recommendations, it’s been a while. I lens to the development of the legislation. appreciate his comments, but I do disagree with most of them, I don’t know how being very prescriptive about who should be unfortunately. on the board meets those fundamental conceptual underpinnings of An Hon. Member: Tell us what you agree with. being flexible and nimble, so again I’m just going to have to disagree with the member there. Absolutely, as we develop the Mr. Nicolaides: Yeah. I’ll be happy to tell you what I agree with. board, as we develop the rest of the governance model – I should What I do agree with is, you know, what the member said, which is comment that when we get to that stage, should the legislation be that it’s important that the different stakeholders that are involved passed, it’s not something that we’ll be, you know, developing in in our apprenticeship ecosystem are at the table. That’s the driving any kind of isolation but through extensive consultation and motivation behind making these changes, because as I mentioned feedback, as we’ve done to get to this stage and as we’ve done with earlier, you know, the member commented that we need to make other efforts – when we get to that point and look at the sure that all stakeholders are at the table. But this amendment development of additional committees, subcommittees, the doesn’t even accomplish that. composition of the board, engaging extensively with our It doesn’t detail that there should be representation, for example, stakeholders within our apprenticeship system will be essential and by our postsecondary institutions. It doesn’t detail, you know, other will be done to ensure that we build the strongest possible important stakeholders, nonprofit groups that deliver governance framework here. preapprenticeship training, or other on-the-job-site training I’m sure the member opposite and others will continue to have, providers and other groups are not included as part of this. you know, comments as we go through that process and we look at Unfortunately, the member has just been very prescriptive about the development of the regulations and the entire framework, about saying: “Only these people. Then anybody else that you want to how to best structure it. I’m very hopeful that they’ll be active appoint, that’s fine, but these people must be there.” I mean, why participants in that process so that we can create the strongest not employ that in a different circumstance and say that, well, our possible system, because I think that when we come together and postsecondary institutions that are delivering the education must be share best practices and ideas, we can create the best possible June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5281 outcome. I’m sure there’ll be some more questions, and I’m happy that there is balance, that there is balance on the board and that to answer those as well, Mr. Chair. certain stakeholders are represented. You know, Mr. Chair, I don’t doubt the minister’s integrity, and The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. I’ll take the minister at his word. The problem I have is that this Are there – I see the hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- minister is part of a government that has lost the trust of Albertans, Clareview has risen. and every week there is a new example of why Albertans should not trust this government. It’s quite shocking, actually. Really, I Mr. Bilous: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It’s my pleasure to mean, my opinion on the government’s performance is not relevant, rise and speak to this amendment. I believe I’ve spoken to this bill but I can tell you that me echoing the sentiments of my constituents, once, but I am very interested in speaking to this bill. I’ll start off. my 40,000 constituents in Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, is The great freedom of Committee of the Whole is that members can relevant. get up multiple times to speak, so really this is my favourite step in legislating a bill, in that true debate can occur. 11:20 I’m going to start off, Mr. Chair, by thanking the Minister of Now, Mr. Chair, this government has given Albertans reason Advanced Education for actively engaging in debate this evening. after reason to not trust them, most recently the sky palace dinner, Again, I will always give credit where credit is due. I know that’s the sky dinner, whatever the reporters are now calling it. Today, at not necessarily the approach that all of the minister’s colleagues least, was a half apology from the Premier, walking it back but not take. The fact that the Minister of Advanced Education is engaging entirely, of course, because it’s always someone else’s fault and and getting up and speaking after every single member of the someone else is to blame for it, but the fact of the matter is that on opposition comments is noted, and I’m sure that Albertans are Thursday in this very place the Premier was arguing something noting it as well. completely different than what he said today. I will talk about and I know colleagues of mine have mentioned We have examples of the increase in personal income taxes, aspects of this bill – and I know we’re speaking to the amendment, where this government campaigned on not increasing taxes and Mr. Chair – that we do support, because there are many elements of then increased taxes. Now, members will tell me: oh, no, no, no; this bill that the opposition supports. The purpose of this removing the bracket is not increasing taxes. I encourage the amendment, like all amendments that we put forward, is to try to members to read their leader’s comments when he was head of the strengthen the bill and enhance the bill and ensure that, again, there Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who spoke at length about bracket is an additional lens that is put on every piece of legislation, acting creep and how that is increasing personal income taxes, yet and looking at it in the best interests of Albertans. somehow 20 years later he becomes the Premier of Alberta and You know, one of the aspects that I really enjoy about this bill, suddenly that’s not increasing personal income taxes. Was he not Mr. Chair, is the fact that we’re talking about enhancing that telling the truth then? experiential education component of our education system. We have other examples of slapping on parks fees, trying to allow Whether we’re in traditional universities or trades schools like mining of the eastern slopes. We have a tax on health care and NAIT and SAIT, I think experiential education is absolutely doctors and nurses and front-line workers, a tax on our education critical. In fact, I can tell you that when I went through university, system. The problem with the bill as it’s currently written, Mr. taking my bachelor of education, the most useful components that Chair, is that I don’t and we don’t and Albertans don’t trust this I found, the most practical components were the practicums. It’s government. important to learn theory. I’m not trying to run that down This amendment is proposing that there are members of whatsoever. But on-the-job experience: there is no replication for employers and members of the designated trades which this affects, it. That is the best experience. this piece of legislation. What we’re saying is: allow the very people In fact, I think every single member of this Chamber will tell you, who you are impacting – you’re changing their profession. They Mr. Chair – and we all come from a varied background – that there should be allowed to be at the table. The reality, Mr. Chair, is that is no single job that can prepare an MLA for the job of MLA. It is as it’s currently written, the Minister of Advanced Education could probably one of the most unique and fascinating jobs that any of us appoint this whole board, and there could be not a single person will ever hold, unreplicated, quite frankly. That’s one of the things from the trades, who this board will create policy around, I love about this job. Members gain experience and gain expertise represented, or it will not have a fair representation. Sure, the through the act of doing it. minister may have a token individual on a board and say, “Look, I The fact that this bill is looking at opening up these opportunities checked the box; there is a person from the designated trades that for experiential education into sectors and areas that have not we are impacting who is on this board,” but they will be, sadly, necessarily traditionally encouraged or have had a practical outnumbered. component to it, I agree with, I applaud. I think that’s fantastic, and The arguments the minister puts forward on a flexible system: I’m happy to see the province moving in that direction. we’re talking about the issue of board governance and who is on the Speaking to this amendment now, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the board. That does not restrict flexibility. What it does is that it minister’s comments on it being too prescriptive, but I’m going to removes the ability of the minister to stack the board with either disagree with the minister. I think what needs to be differentiated is special-interest groups or whoever he sees fit. Now, I can remind looking at ensuring that there is balance on a board of governors the minister, who may say: “I would never do that. No, of course with the abilities and actions that that board can take. Nowhere in not. We don’t have any examples in Alberta.” Oh, wait a minute: this amendment are we proposing to restrict decisions the board is AMVIC. Before we formed government, there were a number of making, programs that they’re going to put forward, or changes to boards that were buddies or donors or party loyalists who were any part of the postsecondary system. If we were proposing that, I appointed, not a meritocracy. I believe in a meritocracy. agree with the minister that we are now putting restrictions on the I believe that the people that should be appointed to this board board of governors, and we’re restricting their mobility; we’re should ensure that there is diversity to counter groupthink. For restricting their decision-making abilities. We would then be anybody who wants to argue with me on that, I can pull up a number causing them to be less flexible. What we are proposing is to ensure of papers that talk about the fact that companies that have a diverse 5282 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 board of governors and a diverse executive C-suite perform better. I could talk all day about this and all night, Mr. Speaker, but I They have stronger financials. It’s not even about the social issue. think that the members of the Chamber have understood my points. Let’s just talk economics. They do better than boards that are For that reason, I will encourage all members to vote in favour of homogeneous. In fact, you’ll find fewer and fewer companies that this amendment. are comprised of that type of board because they’re falling behind, 11:30 quite frankly. What we’re talking about here is to ensure that there is adequate The Deputy Chair: Thank you, hon. member. representation from a variety of groups. There need to be employers I see the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. at the table, absolutely. There needs to be postsecondary representation, absolutely. We need to ensure that workers are there Mr. Nicolaides: I’ll be quick; I promise. I’ll be really quick. I don’t a hundred per cent. This amendment still gives the minister, I would disagree with a lot of what the member said, just certain parts of it, argue, quite a bit of flexibility. When we talk about four individuals of course. We’ll get off talking about having a nimble system. You from employers of these trades, we didn’t say which trades and how know, we’ve talked about that at length. I agree with him. We need many employers and which companies. That would be restrictive. to ensure broad representation, but this doesn’t accomplish that. Employers of the trades is huge. We’re talking about thousands if This amendment doesn’t accomplish broad representation. There not tens of thousands of different companies in Alberta. When we are so many other stakeholders that are critical to our apprenticeship talk about individuals that represent employees, we never talked system that are not included here. The amendment is just looking at about a specific union. In fact, unions aren’t even mentioned. We’re ensuring that specific representation is there, not broad talking about employees, whether they’re unionized or non- representation. If you include postsecondary institutions, other key unionized. We’re just saying that the very people should be at the players, then you have an amendment that’s actually talking about table. broad representation. But not here, so serious concerns there. What’s frustrating is that we saw the example of this when the As well, he talked about machine learning and AI and having government put together their group of who wrote their curriculum. employers or employees from those professions potentially being Where were the teachers in writing the curriculum? The very here, but again this doesn’t allow that because you’re limited to only experts who know better than anyone were not at the table. This trades. You’re saying: designated trades and nondesignated trades. amendment, Mr. Chair, ensures that employees are at the table. The If you create an apprenticeship, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you rest of it I encourage the minister to look at. We’re talking about a have to designate it as a trade. If you wanted to have those couple of individuals who represent employers outside of the individuals, you still wouldn’t be able to under this context because trades. Let’s talk to employers that don’t have a current stake in the you’ve said: designated trades or nondesignated trades. You still game. Now, we’re talking about companies maybe that are in the have three spots, so you need to include postsecondary institutions, artificial intelligence space or in the machine learning space. We’re other key stakeholders, and then other groups. You really limit going outside of your traditional trades. I believe they need to be there a hundred per cent. Then we’re talking about employees that yourself here. Again, I don’t think that this will help accomplish are not working for companies within the trades. This amendment that. is not overly prescriptive. It’s ensuring there’s balance. Lastly, because I know that the member wants to move on, the It goes back to my main argument, Mr. Chair. If the government member talked about stacking the board with special-interest actually had built trust with Albertans when it comes to groups. What kind of special-interest groups are you going to stack consultations or how boards are compromised – or comprised; on this board? Like, postsecondary institutions, employers, pardon me . . . employees, apprentices? I don’t understand. I mean, if the accusation is that you’re just going to appoint a whole bunch of – I An Hon. Member: Either one. don’t know – UCP insiders or loyalists or something like that, that’s a criticism that maybe they can make. But you don’t change that Mr. Bilous: Yeah, well. with this amendment because I could still do that with this . . . then Albertans would have more trust in them. What the amendment; it doesn’t actually address the issue. opposition is doing is putting forward an amendment that at least puts a broad set of parameters around who should be at the table. I An Hon. Member: But you won’t. would tell the minister that companies do the same thing when they’re looking at board members. They want to ensure that there Mr. Nicolaides: But I won’t, of course, because we want to make is diversity. They’re looking for: what are the skills missing from sure that we have a board that is representative of our the current composition of the board? Tell me where in the private apprenticeship system. Not sure it gets there. Again, what are the sector, first of all, a CEO appoints the board and, second of all, special interests in an apprenticeship system that we’re going to appoints the whole board. What we are trying to do, Mr. Chair, is appoint to the board? Too many postsecondary institutions at the ensure that we have broad representation. Parameters are not a bad table? Too many apprentices? I don’t know. thing. Anyway, I’ll finish there. I promise that I’m done, and over to the Again, you know, we can debate back and forth on the definition House leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. of prescriptive, but the amendment – I feel that Albertans would argue that this still provides flexibility for the minister to be able to The Deputy Chair: Thank you. appoint members of the board to ensure that we have broad I see the hon. Government House Leader. diversity, that we have experts from postsecondaries, from industry, from the trades themselves, from outside of the trades, from outside Mr. Jason Nixon: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we rise of the current definition of trades within the industry to move this and report progress on Bill 67. forward. This does not restrict innovation or flexibility. Those are [Motion carried] great speaking points for the minister to ensure that he is the sole person who is going to hand-pick this board. [Mr. Milliken in the chair] June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5283

Mr. Long: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under our health care system has had on the health care system in rural consideration certain bills. The committee reports progress on the Alberta. following bill: Bill 67. I wish to table copies of all amendments The county of St. Paul, Mr. Speaker, in the last week alone has considered by the Committee of the Whole on this date for the lost one-third of its acute-care capacity. One-third of the acute-care official records of the Assembly. beds in the county of St. Paul have been shuttered because this government, in its insistence on what it calls strengthening and The Acting Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. modernizing the health care system in the midst of the pandemic, Does the Assembly concur in the report? All those in favour, chose to continually act last and act least and pushed that health please say aye. care system to the very brink, to the point where so many of our front-line health care workers, nurses in particular, are either Hon. Members: Aye. isolating because of exposure to COVID or taking time off or have The Acting Speaker: Any opposed, please say no. That is carried reached a point of such utter exhaustion that we do not have enough and so ordered. staff to maintain that system. One-third of the acute-care beds in St. Paul county shuttered. head: Government Bills and Orders At Elk Point, one of the sites where some of those beds have been Third Reading shuttered also, now the emergency department does not have doctors two days a week because this government in their claim, as Bill 65 the minister was talking about in moving third reading of this bill, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 said that they are strengthening and modernizing the health system. (continued) That involved their war on doctors, which drove some out of province. Again, their choices on COVID-19 to continually act last The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, are there any members and act least, exhausting those doctors, pushing those doctors and wishing to join debate on Bill 65? I believe that is what was read the health care system to the point where they do not have enough off there. I see the hon. Member for Edmonton-City Centre caught now to staff these emergency departments: that’s what this my eye. government calls strengthening and modernizing the health system. Mr. Eggen: Yes. 11:40 The Galahad continuing care centre, which the Minister of Health The Acting Speaker: Oh. I called Edmonton-City Centre. accused me of spreading false information about today by stating Mr. Shepherd: Sorry. that the Galahad care centre is in fact closed, is closed. Eighteen seniors have been relocated to other communities. One couple The Acting Speaker: That’s okay. separated formerly by 15 minutes are now separated by an hour’s drive because this government again pushed our health care system Mr. Eggen: You go ahead. to the limit, refused to act in time to control the spread of COVID- 19, and again put the Galahad care centre in the position where they Mr. Shepherd: Are we on Bill 65? do not have enough nurses and health care aides to be able to The Acting Speaker: We are on Bill 65. That was what was called continue to operate. That is not false information, Mr. Speaker. by the table. If the hon. Member for Edmonton-City Centre . . . Those are the facts. While the government may want to pat themselves on the back Mr. Shepherd: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the for making a few amendments here in Bill 65 and claim that they opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 65 as that is apparently the are doing a wonderful job of strengthening and modernizing the direction that we are taking at this time. Now, Bill 65, of course, is health care system by puttering about with some details at the edges, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, and recognizing that we they are failing this system as a whole at incredible cost to have some particular changes that are being made through this Albertans, at an incredible loss of access to care in rural legislation by the government. [interjection] We seem to have some communities. Now, the minister, in moving third reading, talked discussion of that on the floor at the moment. But regarding this about how he was proud of the work he had done, hearing feedback particular bill, we have some basic changes that are being made by from valued stakeholders with the College of Pharmacy to greater the government to a few different pieces of health legislation: the empower that college, that professional body on behalf of the Pharmacy and Drug Act, the Health Professions Act, the Alberta pharmacists of Alberta and the pharmacy owners, to empower them Evidence Act, the Crown’s Right of Recovery Act. to be able to make changes without being dependent on Now, the hon. Government House Leader rose earlier, and he government, to give them more freedom, Mr. Speaker. moved third reading on behalf of the Minister of Health and had a Now, I will say that that is in stark contrast to the incredibly few comments to make on that. When he moved third reading of antagonistic and paternalistic manner in which this government has Bill 65, he spoke of how it’s important that despite the pandemic approached so many other health care professions, most notably and the other challenges we face, the government continue their doctors in the province of Alberta and certainly the Alberta Medical work to strengthen and modernize the health system to better Association, who were treated with far from respect and indeed saw protect, to serve Albertans, to meet the needs of Albertans. He massive efforts from this government to vilify over the last year. talked about the feedback from valued stakeholders. Mr. Speaker, Certainly, that has come around as this government has realized the if this government’s goal is in fact to strengthen and modernize the damage that they have done and got a wake-up call when they health system in Alberta, I would say that they are falling far, far couldn’t even get through the last deal that was put forward in front short at this time. We only have to look to just what we have heard of doctors because of the incredible damage that they did with the in recent weeks about the impact this government’s decisions that lack of respect, the lack of consultation, and trying to undermine this minister spoke of in terms of strengthening and modernizing them in every possible way. 5284 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021

So these changes that we have here for the College of Pharmacy Alberta. Certainly, every single Albertan with car insurance has to assist them in setting up their standards of practice: while we do seen the effects of that, this government’s decision to remove the not have any disagreement with those, certainly that is perhaps a cap on the insurance that had been in place and basically allow carte model that this government should consider now as it tries to repair blanche, so Albertans are paying far more even at a time when folks the relationship with Alberta’s doctors. We continue to see those in other provinces are in fact seeing rebates and reductions. In the effects in a letter that I just recently posted on social media that I midst of COVID-19, when they were driving far less, Albertans are received from a woman in Calgary who is losing her family doctor all paying more. It remains to be seen what further steps this at the end of August. He is moving to Ontario, so she and her family government intends to take with auto insurance. But for the time now will have to find a new physician. A number of people reached being, here in this bill basically just allowing the government to out to me after I posted that, Mr. Speaker, to say that they are in the recover some costs: in general I see no issue with that. same position, including my own colleague the Member for Second – now, this is one that we have talked about at some Lethbridge-West. She herself, her mother, and several folks are length; this was one concern that we had raised with this bill – they losing their doctor in Lethbridge. That is part of this government’s are removing the automatic fine that was in place for automobile work, apparently, to strengthen and modernize the health system in insurers who fail to submit their annual premiums report to the province of Alberta, to take away people’s access to primary Treasury Board and Finance. Now, we had, I believe, brought care. forward some amendments to try to correct this and change this and I think of the Cochrane primary care centre, where the entire put the system back in a way that would hold insurance companies place is shutting down, Mr. Speaker, the number of doctors that will accountable in the same way that average Albertans are held be leaving, the hundreds, possibly thousands of patients who will accountable for duly filing their paperwork on time. We had a have to be seeking new care in Cochrane or driving to Calgary now lengthy conversation about why the Minister of Health felt that he to see their doctors where they’re moving. So as the government needed to give the Minister of Finance that sole discretion on makes these changes now for working with the College of whether or not the fine should be applied. Pharmacy, they may well want to reconsider their approach with so Certainly, we’ve had a great discussion at great length tonight many other health professions to try to minimize the damage that about giving sweeping powers to ministers, and of course we’ve got they have done to our provincial health care system and how that is another bill in front of the House, Bill 66, which deals with another affecting Albertans. situation where this government chose to give itself far too great a Now, in Bill 65 we also have some changes, then, to the Alberta sweeping power and again ignored a number of amendments that Evidence Act, providing judges at fatality inquiries with access to were brought forward by the opposition. Indeed, that led to an awful information from health systems, in terms of quality assurance lot of time and money being burned setting that right. committees, to support more comprehensive reviews and better recommendations. Indeed, that again strikes me as reasonable, Mr. 11:50 Speaker. It’s an amendment that was recommended by two separate In this particular case, basically we have yet to hear a clear judges from all their inquiries, so that is the government doing the articulation. Again, we’ve heard a positing of potential scenarios appropriate thing and listening to folks from within the system and but certainly no explanation of a specific situation where this has making the changes. According to health officials it will in fact occurred. The minister, as I recall, talked about: you know, well, bring Alberta in line with the other major provinces. sometimes there might be a fire; information is destroyed. I believe I do not see any real concerns here though certainly I have had that we are in a day and age, Mr. Speaker, where you would be some considerable concerns with some of the other steps this incredibly hard pressed to find, I think, an insurance company who government is taking, particularly in terms of health information. does not have their data saved in multiple locations if not in the Indeed, we recall a bill not that long ago where the officer of the cloud. We are long past the days where the only records that exist Legislature, Ms Jill Clayton, who is responsible for protecting the are the boxes in the basement, so I fail to find that a convincing privacy of Albertans and their information raised serious concerns justification, but as I recall, that’s the only one that the minister was with an utter lack of consultation from the Minister of Health, who really able to provide. I suppose that if we had a catastrophic tried to claim otherwise, but Ms Clayton was quite clear that she and scenario, say some sort of Terminatoresque situation where we had her office were not consulted. I’m certainly hoping that the minister a global power outage – I’m forgetting the term now; there’s a has rectified that in the last little while. We haven’t heard. The particular kind of bomb that puts out a magnetic pulse and destroys minister has been busy with a number of things, as we’ve heard about all electronics within a certain radius – then we might find that all so often in the news of late. But, certainly, in this particular case it records could potentially be destroyed. Perhaps such an apocalyptic seems that there was at least a bit more due diligence done in terms scenario is what the Minister of Finance has in mind. of looking at giving that access to information to the health system in Ultimately, we find this piece here in this bill, despite the fact terms of the quality assurance under the Alberta Evidence Act. that it connects to Treasury Board and Finance because of the Now, we have some further changes that are being put in place premiums that are collected and reported by Treasury Board and under the Crown’s Right of Recovery Act, two consequential Finance, which are used by the Ministry of Health to determine the amendments, basically first adding a provision so that when the health premium that’s charged on auto insurance packages, for government joins an injured claimant’s lawsuit that ultimately ends which, as I noted earlier, all Albertans are currently now paying up being unsuccessful, then the government of Alberta is only more – thank you to this government. That said, in general, that responsible for paying the additional reasonable costs that are concern aside, there is really not anything in particular, I think, that related directly to recovering the cost of health services provided to we will end up objecting to specifically in this piece of legislation. the injured claimant. It is certainly one of the less damaging ones that has been brought Now, I understand that this is the standard approach in both forward by this government, whether in this session, certainly in Ontario and British Columbia, so I do not at this time see serious several previous. issues with that particular approach here, certainly far less I think that that more or less concludes my thoughts, Mr. Speaker, damaging than so many of the government’s other moves over the and I’ll give others the opportunity to speak to third reading. Thank last couple of years when it comes to insurance in the province of you. June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5285

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. So when we have pieces of legislation like Bill 65 coming Are there any other members wishing to join debate? I see the forward – most of this is cleaning up things in the legislation, and hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs has risen. it makes sense – what we’re not seeing is the support that’s so needed to support rural health care. We don’t see anything that talks Ms Goehring: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise this about fixing the fact that they fired 11,000 health care workers once evening to speak to Bill 65, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. the pandemic is over. I want to start by acknowledging all of the incredible front-line What we do know is that there’s this feeling in the province, health care workers that are working so diligently to ensure that based on the decisions, that an American-style health care is Albertans are getting the care that they need in the time of a coming. When we’re in a pandemic and all of our resources and pandemic. My deepest gratitude goes to those individuals that are supports aren’t going to our health care system, that’s a concern. tired, that are working and fighting this pandemic to keep us safe When we don’t have doctors at the table who are part of the and to keep us healthy. decisions about the legislation and the bills that are being brought I think that it’s fitting that we’re in the Legislature tonight talking forward, that’s a problem. We know that COVID is here. We know about health statutes. We know that this government, unfortunately, that we need our physicians. We know that Albertans are hasn’t been doing what’s necessary to make sure that health care in struggling. The last thing they should be worrying about in a our province is moving forward and that it’s actually meeting the pandemic is: do they have access to health care? Do they have needs of Albertans right now, in a time when so many Albertans are access to a doctor? looking to our health care providers for that advice, you know, how Mr. Speaker, those are things that in Alberta should be a given. to stay safe, how to make sure that we’re doing the things that we It should be a guarantee that when you need a physician, you can need to do like getting vaccinations and those types of things. access a doctor. As a mom of three, my firstborn was a Caesarean We’re very fortunate that we have a province with some section. It is a scary time to know that you have to have a major passionate, passionate skilled physicians, nurses, yet when you talk surgery, and to know that I perhaps wouldn’t have been able to to some of them, most of them, they don’t feel that they’re access that in my home community with my doctor would have supported by this government. They feel that they’ve been attacked, been terrifying. To know that when you’re in labour, the decision quite frankly, and I think that when we’re talking about legislation has been made, while you’re in the hospital, that a Caesarean in this House, especially when it relates to health, those comments section is needed but that the hospital can’t provide that service so need to be brought forward. We’re talking about people that take now you have to go somewhere else to continue labouring and have care of us, our front line in our health care system, who aren’t a Caesarean section is not okay. feeling supported, who are exhausted, who are leaving this 12:00 province. There are so many people across this province that were already Mr. Speaker, when we look at this legislation, there are some struggling to find a physician. That’s a well-known fact, that in the things that make sense. When we look at increasing the ability for province, in the country, trying to find enough health care providers pharmacists, I think that that is something that pharmacists have has been a challenge. I know that when I sat at the table for said, that they want this. Knowing that the Alberta College of Seamless Canada as the military liaison for the government, we sat Pharmacy is supportive of this is comforting, because all too often with the provinces and the territories talking about health care, and with this government we see legislation that’s being brought it was a conversation that we were having about: how can we get forward without consultation, and we’re hearing over and over and more physicians to go into those areas of the province or the over that those that are being impacted by the legislation haven’t territories where they’re underrepresented, where communities are had input into it. They haven’t been at the table. travelling long distances to get health care? Then you put a Being able to see here in Bill 65 that the Alberta College of pandemic in the mix, and we watched this government go after Pharmacy is supportive of that is comforting. I don’t know who this doctors. They weren’t at the table talking about what the needs government consults with, often because they don’t tell us, but what were. I do know is that so many come to us and say: we don’t have a voice I’ve had lengthy conversations with my doctor, who truly got into at the table. So seeing that the government is making a decision that practising medicine because she cared, because she cared about is being supported by the College of Pharmacy is something where people. She wanted to make a difference. She took an oath, and she I can say: absolutely, that makes sense. feels that some of the decisions made by this government are When we look at the impact for the Alberta Evidence Act – this actually impeding her ability to provide the care that she truly wants piece of legislation actually has four different acts that are being to provide to Albertans. She said that she sees students come impacted. The Alberta Evidence Act is another piece that I think is through her practice who talk about graduating and leaving Alberta. a decision that makes sense. It’s been supported by judges coming They don’t want to stay in this province when they don’t feel that forward and saying: this is something that we need. Again, knowing ethically they’re able to practise the type of medicine that they want that there has been that consultation, that this has come from those to practise. that do the job and give direction for government, is comforting. Physicians don’t want to have to close down emergency rooms. I wish I could say that for all of the legislation. When I’m Physicians don’t want to stop being able to provide Caesarean standing here in this Chamber as a member of opposition, I want to sections, but the decisions that this government has made and the be able to say to my constituents: this is what the government is lack of support have caused some of these heartbreaking decisions. proposing; this is what those impacted are saying about it. It’s nice We’re hearing from doctors, we’re hearing from nurses who aren’t to see that there have been recommendations made to government taking these decisions lightly. So many that have been here and they’re being acted on. I wish that was so with every piece of practising in this province their entire careers are leaving because legislation. they feel ethically that they’re not able to provide the service of care When it comes to the Alberta Evidence Act, that piece of this, I that they took an oath to provide. They don’t feel supported by their think it makes sense. When we have health officials saying that this government. change brings Alberta in line with other major provinces, that’s a 5286 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021 positive thing, and I appreciate that that is feedback that this You know, I found it particularly difficult to imagine how this government has listened to and is making that change. UCP government would continue its attack on our public health The thing that is concerning about Bill 65 is the Crown’s Right system in the midst of a pandemic. I know that it was part of their of Recovery Act. This speaks to the minister’s ability to have plan to privatize and to shrink the ability of our public health system discretion over whether or not to apply a fine. I heard the Member to meet the needs of our people, but I really didn’t think that they for Edmonton-City Centre give some examples of what could would have the audacity to carry on with those attacks during an happen that would cause someone to be late in their filing, and unprecedented health pandemic, that we’ve all had to live through they’re extreme. We live in an age where we have access to here over the last year and a half. documents; we have the ability to file things. And some of the You know, sure enough, we’ve seen in many sort of obvious or examples we’ve heard in this Chamber are just so far stretched, more surreptitious ways the continuation of the UCP’s ideological about a what-if, that changing the legislation because of these one- attack on health care in the province of Alberta, an attack that puts offs just doesn’t make sense. us in a much more vulnerable position, regardless of if we’re Treasury Board and Finance gave an example of the chief dealing with a pandemic or not, just to meet the needs of our financial officer of an insurance company unexpectedly dying right population for health concerns and to help build the economic before the filing deadline. The chances of that happening: it could recovery that we all so desperately need and want here in the happen. But I would think that the insurance company would have province. a backup plan. They would have some sort of way to access 12:10 documents, file documents. They’re not going to completely shut down because their CFO died right before the filing deadline. They You know, Mr. Speaker, having a strong foundational public would have contingencies in place that would allow them to file. health system is absolutely essential to meet that need we have for So that example, to me, just doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t economic diversification here in the province of Alberta. It is a way support why this minister would need more discretionary power to by which you can build a foundational sense of trust and security support insurance companies, that warrants this drastic change to that allows businesses to choose to start up and to thrive here in the the Crown’s Right of Recovery Act. I know that when it comes to province of Alberta. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that our filing a claim, there are guidelines in place, and there are likely way success economically has been directly tied, over these last 50 years more restrictive circumstances that would come in play for or more, with a concerted investment in public health care such that someone that’s been in an accident to not meet that deadline, trauma you have that economic advantage that a business has by having a being one of them, injury being another. healthy workforce, that you have the security of knowing that you But I can’t imagine that that timeline would be excused, and if an and your family will be looked after in a medical emergency or in individual wanting to file a claim could apply to the minister to say, a chronic situation, and it reduces the expense overall for businesses “Hey, could you exempt me?” with likely very legitimate reasons, and for individuals to carry on with their lives and to build their I don’t understand why the benefit would be given to the insurance businesses and so forth. companies when we’re already seeing so many decisions that this We have to look no further than the United States, that spends at government has made that favour insurance companies. We least 10 or 11 times more on health care in their country without watched them bring in legislation that changes the ability for those any discernible better health outcomes. In fact, their life expectancy that have been in an accident to make a claim. They’ve reduced is considerably lower than Canada’s, and you have incredibly concussion to a nonserious injury, which the science shows is unequal distribution of coverage and care in a place like that even absolutely not true. It is a brain injury, and it is significant, and it is though they’re spending exponentially more money on health care serious. When we asked the government who they spoke to to make to serve their population. that decision, we didn’t hear physicians, we didn’t hear When I see people practically saying that, you know, we need neurologists, and we didn’t hear victims of concussions. It was more choice in our health care system, we need more of these likely insurance companies. This would benefit insurance opportunities for people to pay for procedures and so forth, it’s not companies. This is a piece of legislation in the Health Statutes even becoming sort of a Trojan Horse anymore; it’s more like Amendment Act, 2021, that is again favouring insurance driving a tank through our public health system and saying: “Hey, companies, not Albertans that are looking for support from their you know what? Here we are, the UCP, and we’re going to build a government when it comes to the health services that they rely on private foundation for health care. What are you going to do about in this province. It’s a piece of . . . [Ms Goehring’s speaking time it?” almost in a challenging sort of way. expired] The latest evidence we’ve seen of that, again, just at the place Thank you. where we’re all looking for confidence and reinvestment in our public health system, is, you know, the appointment of Jack Mintz The Acting Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. to Alberta Health Services, who has spent a great deal of his career Standing Order 29(2)(a) is available should anybody wish to trumpeting and promoting private health systems in his philosophy make quick comments or questions. and being very blatant about not being surreptitious or trying to hide Seeing none, are there any members wishing to join debate? I see his interest and desire to have more private health care in any given the hon. Member for Edmonton-North West has risen. system, and here he is on the very most important board, I would argue; giving a board membership to that very same person. Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to just say Forgive me for being a bit skeptical when I see a bill with the a few more words in regard to Bill 65, Health Statutes Amendment word “health” in it when it comes into this Chamber, but we are Act, 2021. You know, when I first saw this bill put onto the Order pretty good at analyzing them and making sure that they’re not Paper, I thought: okay; here we go again, another part of this roller going to contribute to this agenda of privatization. You know, I coaster ride that this UCP government has imposed on all of us here guess there’s sort of a mixed bag in Bill 65. I must say that some of in the province in regard to making attacks on the integrity and the the individual sections were things that were necessary to be done strength and the capacity of our public health system to serve and, in fact, legally necessary because of errors and the problems Albertans now and for always. that the government stumbled into in the first months of their June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5287 governance of our health system in the province. There are a few totally burned up by the very adversarial and cavalier approach areas in this bill that have some logical sort of element to them, I by this government. suppose, that could provide some benefit, right? We can still see the effects of it, and it’s not over yet, quite The part that I would – just going from the last to the first, though, frankly, because I know, just again anecdotally, doctors in my the problematic section. You know, I’ve seen lots of bills come world, either in the neighbourhood or friends: if they’re not thinking through this House, and you can always sort of see where someone about moving to a different jurisdiction, there are sure lots of has tried to tag on something that they needed to do, and they said, jurisdictions that are trying to get them to move, right? It’s, like, a “Oh, well, where should we put this?” and they say, “Well, we have very competitive environment, Mr. Speaker, experienced health this health bill; maybe we can squeeze it in there.” So you see that professionals, doctors especially, where if the larger market, that in the midst of something that is dealing with pharmacy and fatality being Canada or even the United States, gets wind of a place where inquiries and whatnot, suddenly you also have a car insurance maybe there’s unrest or instability caused by government action or element to this bill, right? Show me which thing is not like the what have you, they move right in and start recruiting those doctors others, like they used to say on Sesame Street. This is definitely it, in those jurisdictions and saying: “Hey, you know, you want to go this last section of this bill, which is talking about car insurance. I somewhere else? We’ll give you this, or we’ll give you that, and wonder: really, does it belong there, number one? Number two, we’ll make life better for you, definitely.” does it undermine the other three things that are practical, 12:20 reasonable things we probably could use in the bill and in our health system? You know, it almost kind of does, quite frankly, right? I’ve seen it with one family that I know. They just got an offer to Again, we’ve seen a long sort of history, over the last couple of go to Hawaii, to move their practice as a heart specialist here in years, of this government trying to make life better for car insurance Edmonton. They said: “Hey, you want to come to Hawaii? We’ll companies, right? They’ve done a heck of a job for them. I mean, I fly you there. We’ll get you a house. We’ll get you all fixed up.” know that my car insurance has gone up quite significantly, and I It’s very tempting, of course, right? The only reason that those know that lots of people have been in this position where they just recruiters are here is because they got wind that someone has turned can’t even afford it, quite frankly, anymore, where people end up things upside down in the health industry in this province, and you with this car insurance bill that is outside of their budget. Always can tempt people away when they’re feeling like they’re not being when you have, like, 20 per cent increases, if you don’t have a pretty respected in their jobs. You know, these are the kinds of things that darn good justification to see an increase in a fundamental part of a take a long time to build, and they’re very easy to destroy, and those family’s household budget that exceeds the cost-of-living index, are reputation, Mr. Speaker, integrity, and respect. then you know that you had better have a pretty darn good I mean, we’re still not past repair. I think that, you know, there explanation for that. are a lot of benefits that we do have. I know that amongst health You know, the part that makes it even sort of worse, somehow professionals one of the things that I hear time and time again is that adding insult to injury, is that, of course, people are not driving as they like to work in a functioning, well-funded, publicly funded much anymore in the last year and a half, with the pandemic, right? health care system. Why? Because you know that when you’re I mean, I had to drive here this morning because I thought it was signing up – as the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs said going to rain – I usually ride my bike – but there were hardly any before, you sign a Hippocratic oath or some equivalent as a nurse cars on the road at all, quite frankly. The number of kilometres that and so forth – you’re doing it because it’s a good, stable job, and people are putting on over the last year and a half has been it’s very interesting and stimulating and so forth, but you’re doing significantly less, so why does the car insurance get such a huge it from a position of a basic sense of care of and integrity for human break from this UCP government, allowing them to make that beings, right? correction in their insurance rates that allows them to make so much Working in a public system where no one gets turned away based more money, like I say, squeezing lots of people’s budgets, even on how much money they have in their pocket, no one has their squeezing some people out of their ability to even run a car? For so health compromised because they might live in a certain geographic many families having a vehicle is quite essential, especially outside area where there’s less health care supply, where everyone has an opportunity to access health care that’s preventative as well, not just of densely populated urban areas. going to the hospital when you break your leg but, you know, Again, when I suddenly see a health statutes bill that has a car getting regular treatments that can prolong not just the length of insurance element to it, it makes you just go: what and why and who your life but the quality of your life, too: all of those things are good and where? It seems to me it’s part of a pattern of, as I say, making for the population, Lord knows. We all expect and hope that they’re life better for car insurance companies and not Alberta families. there when we need them for ourselves and our families. That is moving backwards from the thing that I found to be most But they’re good for the health care professionals, too, because critical with Bill 65. You know, other elements of it, I think, serve then they’re working in an environment where they feel and they some utility in regard to fatality inquiries, the Health Professions know that maybe they’re helping this one person and there’s Act, allowing pharmacies to expand their scope of practice, another person down the street that could use the same treatment, providing some veterinarian supports, and so forth. It looks like the but they can’t because they don’t have enough money in their College of Pharmacy is onside with that, so, I mean, I have no pocket, right? That’s a good situation for the psychology and the reason to criticize, I suppose. mental health of your health professionals, too. All of those things Again, when we talk about health professions legislation in work together, Mr. Speaker. Every time we build a piece of general, you know, it can’t go uncommented, Mr. Speaker, around legislation, part of another brick to make it stronger, everyone is just how poorly this UCP government has dealt with labour stronger for it. relations with our health professions around the province here over the last couple of years. I haven’t seen anything like it, quite The Acting Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. frankly, for a generation or more, where the goodwill and the Standing Order 29(2)(a) is available for questions or comments. tables and the places where you can talk and interface in a Seeing none, are there any members wishing to join debate? I see productive manner for our health professions have just been the hon. Member for Edmonton-West Henday has risen. 5288 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021

Mr. Carson: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to rise Speaker. The fact is, again, that these are complex institutions and on Bill 65, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. I’ve appreciated corporations that are in charge of protecting this information, that, the debate this evening. I’m thankful to hear comments regarding rightfully so, have to on an annual basis report to pay the proper this, and I also have to agree that – you know what? – it could have amount of taxes, and that, of course, in this instance, report to the been worse. Based on the history and the actions that we’ve seen Minister of Finance, too, so that we can understand as a government from this government, it definitely could have been worse. I think, what it is going to cost our health care system and our Treasury again, I agree with the hon. members who have spoken so far this Board. Again I question in what instances this government has seen evening that there are instances within this legislation that we can that this might actually be reasonable or necessary. agree with and that may very well have been necessary amendments I also question which companies are going to be allowed to not to the legislation, so I can appreciate that. have to pay a fine anymore. When we talk about giving the minister I’ve had some opportunities to speak to Bill 65, specifically to an more discretion, we’ve seen it over and over again that, you know, amendment we had previously brought forward regarding the it’s not applied to everyone evenly, and it’s up to the Minister of changes that we’ve heard and discussed this evening when it comes Finance or whichever minister it might be affecting in that instance. to the changes to the Crown’s Right of Recovery Act, specifically That’s always a worry for us, when we’re talking about giving extra around the idea that the Minister of Finance now is giving himself powers to ministers. Of course, this is – I really worry because are a discretion on when to apply a fine or not apply a fine. We continue to ask for realistic or real situations where this may have been we talking about smaller corporations that are not going to have to necessary, and we’ve heard anecdotes, unfortunately, no real stories apply these fines? Are we talking about the large corporations like of when this has already happened or if there are events on the Intact who aren’t going to be applying the fine? I’m always, again, horizon where this might be happening. Again, we question why, looking for consistency in legislation, and we do not see that in this first of all, this was brought forward through Bill 65, the Health instance, and that’s very concerning. Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. I can appreciate that some of these Again, I would have to say that this could have been worse. I’ve costs go back to the Health minister and the Finance minister and it had opportunities to speak to this already, and the majority of my goes against potentially the ministry’s finances within Health, so I concerns are specific to the changes that are being proposed around understand that, but at the end of the day, you know, when we make auto insurance. We see some changes that came from the these kinds of changes, quite substantial changes, to how things are recommendations from a fatality inquiry, and we’ve seen one of reported and how fines are applied, I think that it’s important that those recommendations only move forward in this legislation we’re able to take that and discuss it as its own issue. regarding the Mental Health Act. I think that we could have, at the Again, we had brought forward an amendment on that, and I end of the day, potentially done better than that. When we discussed know that we do our best not to speak to things that have already these issues on other pieces of legislation and other bills, we said passed or been denied before this House, but the fact is that those same things. We continue to echo our concerns when those Albertans are rightfully concerned about the track record of this changes were originally brought before the House. government when it comes to accountability within the insurance 12:30 file. The previous member spoke to it to some extent. Of course, when this government came into power, they decided The fact is that we see instances – and I’ve spoken to them before not to renew the 5 per cent cap on auto insurance fees, and what we – around the fact that the superintendent of auto insurance has had saw from that was an escalation of the cost for Albertans when it to put fines against insurance companies before for whether they comes to private auto insurance, and it has been an absolute were overcharging Albertans or whatever other reason, so we need disaster, Mr. Speaker. You know, this government came in on a to continue to do our best to hold these companies accountable. The platform that we wouldn’t necessarily see, well, specific to the work that they’re doing and the insurance industry is so incredibly platform, increases to their taxes, but what we have seen is increases important to Albertans, and upholding the integrity of that is equally to many other fees and costs across the province. as important. Specifically, again, in this instance, we’re talking about So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat, but I insurance, so once we saw that cap removed, many Albertans believe I would like to adjourn debate at this time. Thank you. reported that their increases were upwards of 30 per cent, and at the same time, as the previous member discussed, we saw collision The Acting Speaker: I believe that is a motion. rates going down and payouts for collisions either stabilizing or [Motion to adjourn debate carried] even going down because of the fact that we aren’t driving as much as Albertans, rightfully so doing our best to stay in place and stay head: Government Bills and Orders healthy and at home through this pandemic. You may remember Second Reading that, I think, at the end, Q4, of 2020 CIBC, in response to Intact Insurance’s returns at that time in Q4 2020, said: could it get any Bill 69 better than this? That was the headline on that. We see here through Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 the changes that are being proposed by the Minister of Finance and The Acting Speaker: I see the hon. Government House Leader has the Minister of Health that indeed it can get better for those risen. insurance companies. Now they don’t even necessarily have to pay their fines for being Mr. Jason Nixon: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to late. Again I have to question: in what instances would this be used? rise today to move second reading of Bill 69, the Miscellaneous I believe the Associate Minister of Red Tape Reduction said: well, Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. maybe there’ll be a flood at the office. I can appreciate that, but I This bill will make minor amendments to a number of acts which hope that in most instances, hopefully all instances, these incredibly include the Income and Employment Supports Act; the Family complex institutions and corporations are doing more than keeping Support for Children with Disabilities Act; the Oil and Gas those documents in a single place in a box in the basement, Mr. Conservation Act; the Companies Act; the Alberta Investment June 7, 2021 Alberta Hansard 5289

Attraction Act; the Commercial Tenancies Protection Act; the Public The Acting Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister. Trustee Act; the Employment Standards Code; the Restoring Balance Are there any members wishing to join debate on Bill 69? in Alberta’s Workplaces Act, 2020; the Public Service Employee [Motion carried; Bill 69 read a second time] Relations Amendment Act, 2018; the Municipal Government Act; the Special Areas Act; the Traffic Safety Act; the Societies Act; the The Acting Speaker: I see the hon. Government House Leader has Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Act. risen. Mr. Speaker, these amendments are housekeeping in nature and are intended to provide clarity and consistency and I believe Mr. Jason Nixon: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the actually have the support of the Official Opposition, certainly, in Assembly be adjourned until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 8. this House. It is the traditional housekeeping bill that we would bring forward inside the Chamber. [Motion carried; the Assembly adjourned at 12:34 a.m. on Tuesday]

5290 Alberta Hansard June 7, 2021

Table of Contents Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 65 Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2021...... 5257, 5283 Committee of the Whole Bill 67 Skilled Trades and Apprenticeship Education Act ...... 5272 Second Reading Bill 69 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 ...... 5288 Government Motions Referendum on Equalization Payments ...... 5257

Alberta Hansard is available online at www.assembly.ab.ca

For inquiries contact: Editor Alberta Hansard 3rd Floor, 9820 – 107 St EDMONTON, AB T5K 1E7 Telephone: 780.427.1875 E-mail: [email protected]

Published under the Authority of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta ISSN 0383-3623